Kay Sievers wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 19:30, Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This does not affect current behaviour. However, it is required to >> make the functions thread-safe. (I'm playing with a threaded udevd). >> > > >> - static struct udev_rule *rule; >> + struct udev_rule *rule; >> > > It's not needlessly static, we return _this_ value. The parsing stuff > is not thread safe at the moment, we would need a real fix, this would > break it. > Thanks for looking at these patches. The functions do "return rule", but they always write to it before reading it, so there's no persistent state here. And they don't "return &rule", so it's fine for the variable to be on the stack. Did I miss something? I belatedly noticed the other parsing stuff a few hours after posting the patch :-). I hacked it up and (with unpublished patches) finally got a threaded udevd which appeared to work. (I also did per-thread environment variable emulation, and fixed the caches in udev_sysfs.c for thread-safety). So empirically I had judged this patch correct. And my unpublished patches wouldn't conflict with or obsolete this one. Regards Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
