Dan Pascu writes:
> IMO this is a poor design to have the internal consistency of the program
> depend on the way an external MI command is issued.
i agree that there those operations should be locked. i just have not
had any need for locking in the environment where i use those modules.
impr
On Friday 16 May 2008, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Dan Pascu writes:
> > This line in reload_gws() is not atomic:
> >
> > (*lcrs_ws_reload_counter)++;
> >
> > An atomic counter should be used for that, otherwise the value of
> > lcrs_ws_reload_counter may end up with the wrong value if 2
> >
Dan Pascu writes:
> This line in reload_gws() is not atomic:
>
> (*lcrs_ws_reload_counter)++;
>
> An atomic counter should be used for that, otherwise the value of
> lcrs_ws_reload_counter may end up with the wrong value if 2 concurrent
> processes modify it in a narrow time window.
This line in reload_gws() is not atomic:
(*lcrs_ws_reload_counter)++;
An atomic counter should be used for that, otherwise the value of
lcrs_ws_reload_counter may end up with the wrong value if 2 concurrent
processes modify it in a narrow time window.
The same is true for the lines above
