On Monday, 8 October 2018 14:03:24 BST Steven Whitehouse wrote: > On 08/10/18 13:59, Mark Syms wrote: > > That sounds entirely reasonable so long as you are absolutely sure that > > nothing is ever going to mess with that glock, we erred on the side of > > more caution not knowing whether it would be guaranteed safe or not. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mark > > We should have a look at the history to see how that wait got added. > However the "dead" flag here means "don't touch this glock" and is there > so that we can separate the marking dead from the actual removal from > the list (which simplifies the locking during the scanning procedures)
You beat me to it :-) I think there might be a bit of a problem inserting a new entry with the same name before the old entry has been fully destroyed (or at least removed), which would be why the schedule() is there. -- Tim Smith <tim.sm...@citrix.com>
