On 22 April 2015 at 13:29, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
On 22 April 2015 at 07:26, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Good points. I agree it's better to leave this behavior undefined.
If that is consensus I will send a patch for the docs to add.
Deleting an
On 04/23/15 13:09, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
On 04/22/2015 08:54 PM, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
On 04/22/15 19:06, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Maxim Uvarov
maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote:
On 04/22/15 15:53, Bill Fischofer wrote:
It does that, but as Taras points out there is
On 23 April 2015 at 16:56, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote:
On 04/23/15 13:09, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
On 04/22/2015 08:54 PM, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
On 04/22/15 19:06, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Maxim Uvarov
maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote:
On 04/22/15
-Original Message-
From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ext
Taras Kondratiuk
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 2:47 PM
To: Mike Holmes
Cc: LNG ODP Mailman List
Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: odp_pool: add double destroy
On 04/22/2015 02
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote:
On 04/22/15 15:53, Bill Fischofer wrote:
It does that, but as Taras points out there is a race condition. If one
thread does an odp_pool_destroy() and it succeeds, another thread could do
an odp_pool_create() before
Mailman List
Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: odp_pool: add double destroy
On 04/22/2015 02:29 PM, Mike Holmes wrote:
On 22 April 2015 at 07:26, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
mailto:bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
Good points. I agree it's better
On 04/22/15 15:53, Bill Fischofer wrote:
It does that, but as Taras points out there is a race condition. If
one thread does an odp_pool_destroy() and it succeeds, another thread
could do an odp_pool_create() before the second odp_pool_destroy() and
get the same pool handle which would then
On 04/22/15 19:06, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote:
On 04/22/15 15:53, Bill Fischofer wrote:
It does that, but as Taras points out there is a race condition. If one
thread does an odp_pool_destroy() and it succeeds, another
It does that, but as Taras points out there is a race condition. If one
thread does an odp_pool_destroy() and it succeeds, another thread could do
an odp_pool_create() before the second odp_pool_destroy() and get the same
pool handle which would then be deleted by the second odp_pool_destroy()
From: ext Mike Holmes [mailto:mike.hol...@linaro.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:00 PM
To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
Cc: ext Taras Kondratiuk; LNG ODP Mailman List
Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: odp_pool: add double destroy
On 22 April 2015 at 08:57, Savolainen
On 04/21/2015 10:14 PM, Mike Holmes wrote:
Signed-off-by: Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_pool.c | 25 +
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_pool.c b/test/validation/odp_pool.c
index 1a518a0..c2f9a1b 100644
---
Good points. I agree it's better to leave this behavior undefined.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Taras Kondratiuk
taras.kondrat...@linaro.org wrote:
On 04/21/2015 10:14 PM, Mike Holmes wrote:
Signed-off-by: Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_pool.c | 25
On 22 April 2015 at 06:44, Taras Kondratiuk taras.kondrat...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 04/21/2015 10:14 PM, Mike Holmes wrote:
Signed-off-by: Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_pool.c | 25 +
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git
On 22 April 2015 at 07:26, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
Good points. I agree it's better to leave this behavior undefined.
If that is consensus I will send a patch for the docs to add.
Deleting an already deleted pool results in unspecified behavior.
On Wed, Apr 22,
We just need to be specific about what we're testing here. This really is
no different than attempting to free a memory area twice. Clearly an
error, but do we require an implementation to detect and report this or is
it an application responsibility?
Taras' point about race conditions in
On 04/22/2015 02:29 PM, Mike Holmes wrote:
On 22 April 2015 at 07:26, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
mailto:bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
Good points. I agree it's better to leave this behavior undefined.
If that is consensus I will send a patch for the docs to add.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
Reviewed-by: Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_pool.c | 25 +
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git
Signed-off-by: Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_pool.c | 25 +
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_pool.c b/test/validation/odp_pool.c
index 1a518a0..c2f9a1b 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_pool.c
+++
18 matches
Mail list logo
