On 6/28/22 20:28, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
Am 28/06/2022 um 17:26 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
On 6/28/22 18:22, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 6/28/22 16:04, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
Ok so far I did the following:
- duplicated each public function as static {function}_locked()
They shouldn't be duplicates: function without _locked suffix should
take the mutex.
By "duplicate" I mean same function name, with just _locked suffix.
Maybe a better definition?
Almost done preparing the patches!
Why not just add _locked version and rework the version without suffix
to call _locked under mutex one in one patch, to just keep it all
meaningful?
I mean, instead of:
patch 1: add a _locked() duplicate
At this point we have a duplicated function that's just bad practice.
patch 2: remake version without prefix to call _locked() under mutex
Now everything is correct. But we have to track the moment when
something strange becomes something correct.
do just
patch 1: rename function to _locked() and add a wrapper without suffix,
that calls _locked() under mutex
That's what I always intended to do. As I said, I just used the wrong word.
Ah, OK then, I misunderstood.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
