Hi Junio, On Mon, 23 May 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > I suggested to replace the `finished` variable with an attribute (or > > "field" or "member variable") of the slot, and to respect it when > > looking for an unused slot, i.e. not only look for a slot whose > > `in_use` is 0 but also require `reserved_for_use` to be 0. In essence, > > the `run_active_slot()` function owns the slot, even if it is not > > marked as `in_use`. That should address the same concern as baa7b67d > > but without using a pointer to a local variable. > > Not really. An outer run_active_slot() and an inner > run_active_slot() have a pointer to the same slot object. How is that possible? One of the first things that function does is to assign `slot->finished = &finished`, and then run that `while (!finished)` loop. How would the outer `run_active_slot()` ever get signaled via `finished` when the inner `run_active_slot()` would overwrite `slot->finished`? I am puzzled why we do not see infinite loops in such outer calls all the time, then. Ciao, Dscho
