On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 10:34:26PM -0700, Anand Avati 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". Here is it, please review! http://review.gluster.com/3794 -- Emmanuel Dreyfus manu@xxxxxxxxxx
