On Fri, 2018-10-05 at 12:02 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:11:18PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 11:31 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > > > > > thoughts? > > > > Generally speaking, we're deeply in the realm of highly unlikely > > situations I would say. But we should get it right eventually. > > > > Maybe we can add logic to the tur thread to keep its hands off the > > context if it's a "zombie", like below (just a thought, untested)? > > This still wouldn't stop a thread from racing with new thread > creation > to change ct->holders or ct->running. I don't see a problem with ct->holders. Being a refcount, it seems to be made quite for this purpose. The zombie thread _must_ decrement it when it eventually exits. Wrt ct->running, we may have to move it under the lock again if we want to be absolutely sure. Regards Martin -- Dr. Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>, Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
