Leonardo Bras Soares Passos wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 7:03 AM Juan Quintela wrote:
>>
>> Leonardo Brás wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 08:39 +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> >> Use of flags with respect to locking was incensistant. For the
>> >> sending side:
>> >> - it was set to 0 with
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 7:03 AM Juan Quintela wrote:
>
> Leonardo Brás wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 08:39 +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> Use of flags with respect to locking was incensistant. For the
> >> sending side:
> >> - it was set to 0 with mutex held on the multifd channel.
> >> - M
Leonardo Brás wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 08:39 +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Use of flags with respect to locking was incensistant. For the
>> sending side:
>> - it was set to 0 with mutex held on the multifd channel.
>> - MULTIFD_FLAG_SYNC was set with mutex held on the migration thread.
>>
On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 08:39 +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Use of flags with respect to locking was incensistant. For the
> sending side:
> - it was set to 0 with mutex held on the multifd channel.
> - MULTIFD_FLAG_SYNC was set with mutex held on the migration thread.
> - Everything else was done w
Use of flags with respect to locking was incensistant. For the
sending side:
- it was set to 0 with mutex held on the multifd channel.
- MULTIFD_FLAG_SYNC was set with mutex held on the migration thread.
- Everything else was done without the mutex held on the multifd channel.
On the reception si
