William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> I'm ambivalent now I guess. I'm not wild about bh's in the first place, >> so infecting core code with new dependencies on them doesn't sound hot, >> though I still can't help cringing at using a bitflag in the first bh >> in the list to protect against concurrent teardown of the bh list, >> which relies on the setup/teardown patterns.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:21:57PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > It's not quite as bad as that - there will be no teardown while > any of the buffers are still in flight. The lock is simply to > protect concurrent completion of requests, it could just as > easily go in the last bh. I'd hoped what I had in mind with all that would've been clearer. It should be clear that I understand it is not overtly broken. -- wli
