Lars, 2010/10/27 Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenb...@linbit.com>: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 08:21:26PM +0900, Keisuke MORI wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The recent heartbeat on the tip would cause an assertion fail in >> pacemaker-1.0 and generate a core: (snip) > I don't care for the "get_more_random()" stuff and > keeping 100 "random" values prepared for get_next_random, > that is probably just academic sugar, anyways. > > If it does not work, we throw it all out, or fix it.
Ok, then let's just drop the changeset. I agree that srand should not be called many times, but I would rather prefer to just keep the existing behavior since there have been no problems with that so far. > > I object to calling srand many times. > Actually we should only call it once, > we still call it in too many places. > > I found the get_next_random() function to apparently properly wrap > around a "static int inityet" and do the srand only once, > so I just used it. > > Would it help to call g_main_loop_new() earlier? > Can we more cleanly catch the "no GMainLoop there yet" in > get_more_random()? > > Should we just drop get_next_random() from cl_rand_from_interval? > Or drop it altogether along with get_more_random and its static > array -- it's not as if generating random numbers was performance > critical in any way, is it. It could possibly help, but I don't think it's worth to do it right now. Any other backlogs to release the heartbeat packeage? I would look forward to be released it soon! Thanks, -- Keisuke MORI _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
