On 21 July 2016 at 15:20, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp > wrote:
> > After some consideration, I found that ExecAsyncWaitForNode > cannot be reentrant because it means that the control goes into > async-unaware nodes while having not-ready nodes, that is > inconsistent state. To inhibit such reentering, I allocated node > identifiers in depth-first order so that ascendant-descendant > relationship can be checked (nested-set model) in simple way and > call ExecAsyncConfigureWait only for the descendant nodes of the > parameter planstate. > > We have estate->waiting_nodes containing a mix of async-aware and non-async-aware nodes. I was thinking, an asynchrony tree would have only async-aware nodes, with possible multiple asynchrony sub-trees in a tree. Somehow, if we restrict the bubbling up of events only upto the root of the asynchrony subtree, do you think we can simplify some of the complexities ? For e.g. ExecAsyncWaitForNode() has become a bit complex seemingly because it has to handle non-async-nodes also, and that's the reason I believe you have introduced modes such as ASYNCCONF_FORCE_ADD. > regards, > > -- > Kyotaro Horiguchi > NTT Open Source Software Center >
