On 7/10/19 12:10 PM, Farhan Ali wrote: > > > On 07/10/2019 09:45 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:27:47 -0400 >> Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 07/09/2019 10:21 AM, Halil Pasic wrote: >>>> Do we need to use atomic operations or external synchronization to >>>> avoid >>>> this being another gamble? Or am I missing something? >>> >>> I think we probably should think about atomic operations for >>> synchronizing the state (and it could be a separate add on patch?). >> >> +1 to thinking about some atomicity changes later. +1 >> >>> >>> But for preventing 2 threads from stomping on the cp the check should be >>> enough, unless I am missing something? >> >> I think so. Plus, the patch is small enough that we can merge it right >> away, and figure out a more generic change later. > > I will send out a v3 soon if no one else has any other suggestions. > I thumbed through them and think they look good with Conny's suggestions. Nothing else jumps to mind for me.
