<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:manu@netbsd.org" target="_blank">manu@netbsd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">Anand Avati <<a href="mailto:anand.avati@gmail.com">anand.avati@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I wonder how this will impact multi-thread syncproc. You might want to<br>
> #define SYNCENV_PROC_MAX to 1?<br>
<br>
</div>What does it do? You mean instead of my proposed change?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not "instead", but along. syncproc is a pthread which executes synctasks (and syncops). So a synctask_set() performed in one syncproc will not be obtained via synctask_get() performed in another (original) syncproc. So instead of NULL we could get an unexpected (and maybe free'd/corrupted?) synctask pointer. If we either avoid bouncing of synctasks between syncprocs, or limit syncenv to a single syncproc, then your patch will be "complete".</div>
<div><br></div><div>Avati</div><div><br></div></div>