Hi Eric,
Thanks for your careful review of these patches. I'll post v4 patches
tomorrow fixing all problems you pointed out.
>
> daemon/libvirtd.c already has a notion of worker threads; I'm wondering
> how much overlap there is between your implementation and that one. A
> better proof that this would be a useful API addition would be to have
> the next patch in the series convert libvirtd.c over to using this API.
OK. Will be in v4.
<...snip...>
> > +int virWorkerPoolSetMaxWorker(struct virWorkerPool *pool, int maxWorker)
> > +{
> > + if (maxWorker < 0)
> > + return -1;
> > +
> > + pthread_mutex_lock(&pool->mutex);
> > + pool->nMaxWorker = maxWorker;
> > + pthread_mutex_unlock(&pool->mutex);
>
> Does this do the right thing if maxWorker < pool->nMaxWorker, or does it
> silently lose existing workers?
In the case maxWorker < pool->nMaxWorker and there are pool->nMaxWorker
threads running, (pool->nMaxWorker - maxWorker) threads will exit after
the new nMaxWorker set.
<...snip...>
> > +
> > +typedef void (*virWorkerFunc)(void *);
>
> pthread_create() takes a function that can return void*. Should worker
> functions be allowed to return a value?
threadpool doesn't care the return value, neither it has no way to pass
the return value to threadpool creator, so it's meaningless for worker
functions to return a value.
Another example is virThreadFunc which does't return a value neither.
--
Thanks,
Hu Tao
--
libvir-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
