On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 06:45:04PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Jeff King wrote:
>
> > --- a/run-command.c
> > +++ b/run-command.c
> > @@ -603,7 +603,7 @@ static NORETURN void die_async(const char *err, va_list params)
> > {
> > vreportf("fatal: ", err, params);
> >
> > - if (!pthread_equal(main_thread, pthread_self())) {
> > + if (!running_main_thread()) {
> > struct async *async = pthread_getspecific(async_key);
> > if (async->proc_in >= 0)
> > close(async->proc_in);
> > @@ -614,6 +614,19 @@ static NORETURN void die_async(const char *err, va_list params)
> >
> > exit(128);
> > }
> > +
> > +int running_main_thread(void)
> > +{
> > + return pthread_equal(main_thread, pthread_self());
> > +}
>
> Would it make sense to do something like
>
> return !main_thread_set || pthread_equal(...);
>
> in case someone tries to call this before the first start_async call?
I considered that, but assumed that pthread_equal would always return
false against the zeroed out static main_thread. Mostly because we
appeared not to be bothering with such a check already. But actually,
in the existing code, it is only checked from die_async, which is only
put into place when we _do_ start a thread, so we would never hit this
code path without main_thread being set.
So yes, a check probably would make sense. However, I think I'm
convinced that we should drop this in favor of using thread-local
storage for the "dying" counter. So this patch can just go away.
Thanks for reviewing this version, though.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html