On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Anand Avati <anand.avati@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:What does it do? You mean instead of my proposed change?
> I wonder how this will impact multi-thread syncproc. You might want to
> #define SYNCENV_PROC_MAX to 1?
Not "instead", but along. syncproc is a pthread which executes synctasks (and syncops). So a synctask_set() performed in one syncproc will not be obtained via synctask_get() performed in another (original) syncproc. So instead of NULL we could get an unexpected (and maybe free'd/corrupted?) synctask pointer. If we either avoid bouncing of synctasks between syncprocs, or limit syncenv to a single syncproc, then your patch will be "complete".
Avati
