On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 12:36:59PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> The non-atomic test + set is a little awkward here, and it technically
> means we might double-schedule work unnecessarily. AFAICT, this is not
> really a problem, since the extra "work" will be a no-op (the flag(s)
> will be cleared
The non-atomic test + set is a little awkward here, and it technically
means we might double-schedule work unnecessarily. AFAICT, this is not
really a problem, since the extra "work" will be a no-op (the flag(s)
will be cleared by then), but it's still an anti-pattern.
Rewrite this to use the
