On 26/08/22 23:52, Ian Rogers wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 1:40 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:21 PM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 26/08/22 22:00, Namhyung Kim wrote: >>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:53 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Below seems adequate for now, at least logically, but maybe it >>>>> would confuse clang thread-safety analysis? >>>> >>>> I think it's not just about locks, the exit_browser should bail out early >>>> if the setup code was not called. >>> >>> In those cases, use_browser is 0 or -1 unless someone has inserted >>> an invalid perf config like "tui.script=on" or "gtk.script=on". >>> So currently, in cases where exit_browser() is called without >>> setup_browser(), it does nothing. Which means it is only the >>> unconditional mutex_destroy() that needs to be conditional. >> >> Yeah there's a possibility that it can be called with > 0 use_browser >> on some broken config or something. So I think it's safer and better >> for future changes. > > I'd thought about a: > static bool ui__lock_initialized; > but the issue is shouldn't it be atomic? No, it is only accessed from the main thread.
