On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 04:34:32PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
> ---
> urcu-call-rcu-impl.h | 6 ++++++
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h b/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h
> index 65c1c7a..3c68ae7 100644
> --- a/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h
> +++ b/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h
> @@ -686,6 +686,12 @@ void call_rcu_after_fork_child(void)
> default_call_rcu_data = NULL;
> (void)get_default_call_rcu_data();
>
> + /* Cleanup call_rcu_data pointers before used */
> + maxcpus = 0;
> + free(per_cpu_call_rcu_data);
> + per_cpu_call_rcu_data = NULL;
Good catch! I would expect that the number of CPUs would be the
same for the child as it was for the parent, but doesn't hurt to
make the child start over.
> + thread_call_rcu_data = NULL;
Isn't thread_call_rcu_data already NULL due to the child being a new
thread and the C initialization-to-zero rules?
Thanx, Paul
> +
> /* Dispose of all of the rest of the call_rcu_data structures. */
> cds_list_for_each_entry_safe(crdp, next, &call_rcu_data_list, list) {
> if (crdp == default_call_rcu_data)
> --
> 1.7.4.4
>
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
