> On Oct. 31, 2013, 6:19 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/shared.hpp, line 175 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/15112/diff/2/?file=374598#file374598line175> > > > > Do we need any memory fencing here?
I thought about this when coding. My conclusion is that we should not have a memory consistency issue here. Even if some reads after the read of 'upgraded' here are reordered (i.e., executed before the read of 'upgraded'), it won't cause any problem because we don't rely on 'upgraded' to establish order between reads and writes to any other locations. Thoughts? - Jie ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15112/#review27860 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 31, 2013, 5:05 a.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/15112/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 31, 2013, 5:05 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Vinod Kone, and Jiang > Yan Xu. > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/shared.hpp faa11cc > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/shared_tests.cpp e520b4f > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15112/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Jie Yu > >
