Anand Avati <anand.avati@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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". I must set SYNCENV_PROC_MIN to 1 as well, right? -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz manu@xxxxxxxxxx
