On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I didn't mean to change this bit, it should remain "if >>> (!num_threads)". I was in the middle of monkeypatching and didn't >>> review the diff carefully enough. But it any case, without this change >>> the rest of this diff is your proposed (but segfaulting) change as I >>> understand it. >> >> Sorry for the proposing a sloppy alternative. (I missed one occurrence >> of num_threads used in a conditional). >> I think the original is still better than littering comments everywhere. > > I should have said: None of these follow-up diffs of mine (including > the added comments) are something I think should be applied, I just > inlined that to explain the code in context. ok, cool. :) > > Just to make 100% sure I understand you, do you mean you think the > original v4 version I posted here makes sense with that explanation or > do you have other outstanding concerns? Well as I said in the first message, I would have tried a different approach for this patch as I'd find that easier to understand. (Not sure what exactly is missing there to make it work). But the version v4 is fine with me, too, no other outstanding concerns.