Hi :)
> > > It might be a good idea use atomic operations instead of the spin lock
> > > (which is what the spin lock is using behind the scenes anyways).
> >
> > It may not be possible: further down there is a decision taken depending
> > on totalthreads/nreqthreads becoming 1, and thus you need
At Sun, 10 Nov 2013 11:54:20 +0100,
Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> Neal H. Walfield, le Sun 10 Nov 2013 11:38:04 +0100, a écrit :
> > At Sat, 9 Nov 2013 18:21:51 +0100,
> > Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > + pthread_spin_lock (&lock);
> > > > + totalthreads--;
> > > > +
Neal H. Walfield, le Sun 10 Nov 2013 11:38:04 +0100, a écrit :
> At Sat, 9 Nov 2013 18:21:51 +0100,
> Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > + pthread_spin_lock (&lock);
> > > + totalthreads--;
> > > + nreqthreads--;
> > > + pthread_spin_unlock (&lock);
>
> It might be a good idea us
At Sat, 9 Nov 2013 18:21:51 +0100,
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > + pthread_spin_lock (&lock);
> > + totalthreads--;
> > + nreqthreads--;
> > + pthread_spin_unlock (&lock);
It might be a good idea use atomic operations instead of the spin lock
(which is what the spin lo
Justus Winter, le Sat 09 Nov 2013 14:21:09 +0100, a écrit :
> Previously the number of total threads and the number of unused
> threads was wrong if at one point the creation of a thread failed. Fix
> this by decrementing both counters that were previously optimistically
> incremented. Adjust the c
Previously the number of total threads and the number of unused
threads was wrong if at one point the creation of a thread failed. Fix
this by decrementing both counters that were previously optimistically
incremented. Adjust the comment accordingly.
* libports/manage-multithread.c (ports_manage_p
