On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 18:37 +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote: > 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? Ah, they should return a pointer to the data passed in to the function, which should be fine. Applied. Thanks, Kay -- 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
