Sergey Vojtovich <[email protected]> writes: >> I failed to understand why the patch would fix the assertion mentioned in the >> bug report. But the patch itself looks correct. > That's a bit tricky... I'll explain just one of the simplest side effects of > this bug, which is half way to this assertion failure. Please let me know if > you want me to track it down to the assertion failure.
Thanks, no there is no need. I agree that the patch is correct and fixes a real issue. In fact, as I understand your explanation, the real problem is that the rwlocks behave incorrectly. The assertion is just how it was discovered, but it's just one symptom of a real problem. That is how I understood the patch as well. (It is often a good idea in commit messages to explain the actual problem, rather than the symptom that was used to discover the bug. Eg. I often see commit messages like "Fix a Valgrind warning in Buildbot", instead of a proper explanation about what was actually wrong and what the user-visible effect was, if any. You did explain in the commit message that the problem was incorrect load order, no need to change it I think.) - Kristian. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
