René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> writes: > archive-tar.c (and archive-zip.c) use other static variables, so a > static gzhead won't break or block anything in this regard. There was > no interest in running it in parallel threads so far AFAIK, and it's > hard for me to imagine the usefulness of creating multiple .tgz files at > the same time. ;-) FWIW I had exactly the same reaction. If this were a lot isolated piece of helper function, perhaps, but no, reentrancy for this helper function specifically written for this code path is not a very good argument. The code structure the (not very good) argument tried to suport, however, is a good thing to have regardless, and if the code is written in such a way from the beginning, there is no reason to reject it. If it opens the door to a unified way to deal with all the other static global variables (e.g. have a "archiver_state" structure that collects all of them, with this one included, and pass it around, or something), that would be great. Short of that, I do not care too much either way. As this topic is not even in 'next', "once written in one way, it is not worth the code churn to rewrite it in the other way, when these two ways are both reasonable" does not yet apply here, so ... > But that's all just minor quibbling -- I'll include your changes in the > next version, they look fine overall. ... that's fine, too. Thanks, both.
