On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Anand Avati <anand.avati@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I must set SYNCENV_PROC_MIN to 1 as well, right?
> 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".
Right!
Avati
