On Jul 22, 2013, at 2:21 PM, "Siwek, Jonathan Luke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> What was the issue? Maybe I'm reading the diff wrong, but the membership > check should be implicit in the delete statement, so this change shouldn't > function differently? Or if it actually does, then there's probably still a > bug in the core code. That variable has &synchronized applied to it. It causes tons of del messages to be sent over the communication code on clusters. Yet another *very* difficult to find problem due to ambiguities brought up from the &synchronized attribute. :) .Seth -- Seth Hall International Computer Science Institute (Bro) because everyone has a network http://www.bro.org/ _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
