Am Donnerstag, den 08.04.2021, 11:07 -0400 schrieb Alan Stern: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:23:05AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 25.03.2021, 14:38 -0400 schrieb Alan Stern: > > Yes. If the URBs themselves, as opposed to their payloads, are > > different, this will happen. Yet I am afraid we are looking at a > > necessary race condition here. If you cancel a non-atomic operation, > > you will need to deal with all possible intermediate stages of > > completion. > > That's not the point. The point is that the description you wrote is > incorrect. > > I can imagine someone who doesn't understand the details of the > anchor/mooring API creating an array of pointers to URBs, then filling > in those URBs in the array's order. That would mess things up if a > previous kill caused the order of the anchor list to be different from > the array order. OK, I will fix the description. > How about instead of moving URBs to the end of the list when they > complete, you have the anchor maintain a pointer to the most recently > submitted URB? That presumes that the URBs will finish in order. I don't think such an assumption can be made. Regards Oliver
