On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Nils Carlson ([email protected]) wrote:
Yep. fixed. merged.
+ /*
+ * FIXME: This could be prettier, we loop over the list twice and
+ * following good locking practice should lock around the loop
+ */
+ cds_list_for_each_entry_safe(trace, trace_tmp, <t_traces.head,
list) {
+ ltt_trace_destroy(trace->trace_name, 1);
+ }
So what' up with these missing locks ?
They are actually taken by each ltt_trace_destroy. Also, this function is
run as part of the ust_fork so locking in the child is a non-issue at this
point. Its mostly an aesthetic thing that we should be consistent in
dealing with locks.
/Nils
Mathieu
/* Clean up the listener socket and epoll, keeping the scoket
file */
ustcomm_del_named_sock(listen_sock, 1);
--
1.7.1
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
