On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 04:59:45PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > > That is the way any HTM code should be written in the first place > > (except for rollback-only transactions, but let's not go there -- > > besides, it is normal for those to fail as well, and there needs to be a > > fallback there as well :-) ) > > Agreed and I'm not sure why I didn't write it that way to begin with. > Maybe I thought it was so simple that the likelihood of it failing was > so small we'd never see it? Anyway, we do now, so...
Yeah, and you perhaps were misled by not seeing it fail in any testing (it fails only .02% of the time you said). For that reason it helps to make testcases fail *more* often. That isn't very trivial to do with HTM of course. Since we don't do HTM anymore it will all fade away, and let's not bother, why am I typing still :-) Segher
