Hi Jan, I think we need a memory barrier here between sync_in_process = 0 and totempg_trans_ack() or have to introduce a lock to protect them both. Otherwise, on some memory reordering multicore architectures, this code swaping seems meanless. 在 2013-3-21 下午5:11，"Jan Friesse" <[email protected]>写道：
> If IPC thread is waiting for allow_send and sync_in_process is changed > before trans_ack, message may be copied to incorrect queue. Solution is > to swap sync_in_process and trans_ack. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Friesse <[email protected]> > --- > exec/main.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/exec/main.c b/exec/main.c > index 6c8ea35..45abc9f 100644 > --- a/exec/main.c > +++ b/exec/main.c > @@ -272,11 +272,11 @@ static void corosync_sync_completed (void) > { > log_printf (LOGSYS_LEVEL_NOTICE, > "Completed service synchronization, ready to provide > service.\n"); > - sync_in_process = 0; > /* > * Inform totem to start using new message queue again > */ > totempg_trans_ack(); > + sync_in_process = 0; > } > > static int corosync_sync_callbacks_retrieve (int sync_id, > -- > 1.7.1 > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
