On 29.09.2017 12:58, Eric Engestrom wrote:
On Thursday, 2017-09-28 20:23:16 +0200, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 28.09.2017 18:37, Eric Engestrom wrote:
On Thursday, 2017-09-28 16:10:51 +, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
From: Nicolai Hähnle
A tempting alternative fix would be adding a lock/unlock pair
On Thursday, 2017-09-28 20:23:16 +0200, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On 28.09.2017 18:37, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > On Thursday, 2017-09-28 16:10:51 +, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> > > From: Nicolai Hähnle
> > >
> > > A tempting alternative fix would be adding a lock/unlock pair in
> > > util_queue_fen
On 28.09.2017 18:37, Eric Engestrom wrote:
On Thursday, 2017-09-28 16:10:51 +, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
From: Nicolai Hähnle
A tempting alternative fix would be adding a lock/unlock pair in
util_queue_fence_is_signalled. However, that wouldn't actually
improve anything in the semantics of uti
On Thursday, 2017-09-28 16:10:51 +, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> From: Nicolai Hähnle
>
> A tempting alternative fix would be adding a lock/unlock pair in
> util_queue_fence_is_signalled. However, that wouldn't actually
> improve anything in the semantics of util_queue_fence_is_signalled,
> while
From: Nicolai Hähnle
A tempting alternative fix would be adding a lock/unlock pair in
util_queue_fence_is_signalled. However, that wouldn't actually
improve anything in the semantics of util_queue_fence_is_signalled,
while making that test much more heavy-weight. So this lock/unlock
pair in util_
