Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, May 24 2022, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> >> [...] >> Let's drop that local variable and introduce a new flag in the slot that >> is used to indicate that even while the slot is no longer in use, it is >> still reserved until further notice. It is the responsibility of >> `run_active_slot()` to clear that flag once it is done with that slot. >> >> Initial-patch-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > > Don't you mean by me? > I.e. https://lore.kernel.org/git/patch-1.1-1cec367e805-20220126T212921Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ Most likely, but this version is so distant from the "clear slot->finished before leaving run_active_slot()" Dscho and I were recently discussing, that I do not think it can be said to have been derived from that one. This is completely a different patch that makes different changes. The "clear slot->finished", by the way, is what I think is the right thing to do, especially that the objective is to squelch the false positive warning from a new compiler. If there is a way to annotate the line for the compiler to tell it not to warn about it, that would have been even better. > This seems to be derived from that, or perhaps you just came up with > something similar independently. Junio then came up with the smaller > https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq8rv2nggn.fsf@gitster.g/ I actually do not think so. Yours is revert of the existing fix the compiler is confused about, and I have a feeling that if the original fix is still relevant, the problem the original fix wanted to address will resurface as a regression. If I am reading the patch correctly, Dscho's is to avoid [*] reusing a slot while any run_active_slot() is still waiting for its completion. The approach would solve the problem the original fix wanted to solve in a different way. Personally I do not think such a surgery is necessary only to squelch false positives from a new warning compiler, though. [Footnote] * I said "is to avoid", not "avoids", because I haven't studied the patch with sufficient degree of carefulness to say for sure, even though I can see that is the intent.
