Sarah Jelinek wrote:
>
>
> Sundar Yamunachari wrote:
>> Sarah Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sundar Yamunachari wrote:
>>>> Sarah Jelinek wrote:
>>>>> Hi Sundar and Jan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review the changes for:
>>>>>
>>>>> 533 Caiman crashes if transfer fails during install (out of memory?)
>>>>>
>>>>> webrev is located at:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sjelinek/bug_533/
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> sarah
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>>>>   
>>>> perform_slim_install.c:
>>>>
>>>> 97: Remove the line. "ti_done" is no longer used.
>>> will do.
>> Also  lines 616 and 624.
>>>>
>>>> 451: If you are going to wait for ti to complete, why create a 
>>>> thread? Why not directly call libti?
>>> Because we still want to run the TI processing in its own thread. We 
>>> have progress reporting we need to have run in its own thread. The 
>>> pthread_join doesn't stop the thread from running, and it still 
>>> enables to gui to reap the progress reporting. It doesn't block this 
>>> mechanism where if we called libti directly we would block the 
>>> progress reporting. pthread_join simply allows me to get the exit 
>>> status of the do_ti function so I can properly handle an error.
>> Are we sending multiple callbacks to GUI for TI? I see Orchestrator 
>> is sending one callback at the end of TI processing. Is TI module 
>> sending callbacks directly to GUI? If we plan to send multiple 
>> callbacks to GUI to report TI progress in the future, then it makes 
>> sense to create a thread.
> We send multiple callbacks. Look at ti_cb(). We actually report for 3 
> milestones.
okay. ti_cb is passed to ti_create_target(). I missed that.


Thanks,
Sundar
>
> sarah
> ****
>>
>> - Sundar
>>>
>>> The other thing I could do is call libti directly and put the 
>>> progress reporting for TI in a separate thread. This way seemed the 
>>> most straightforward way to fix this issue. But, I am open to 
>>> discussion on this.
>>>
>>> thanks for the review,
>>> sarah
>>> ****
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Sundar
>>>>
>>
>>


Reply via email to