* Paul E. McKenney ([email protected]) wrote:
> The current implementation of cds_wfcq_dequeue_lock() and
> cds_wfcq_dequeue_unlock() entails mutually assured recursion.
> Redirect to _cds_wfcq_dequeue_lock() and _cds_wfcq_dequeue_unlock(),
> respectively.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
Good catch !!
Merged, thanks!
Mathieu
>
> diff --git a/wfcqueue.c b/wfcqueue.c
> index 3474ee0..90b810e 100644
> --- a/wfcqueue.c
> +++ b/wfcqueue.c
> @@ -57,13 +57,13 @@ void cds_wfcq_enqueue(struct cds_wfcq_head *head,
> void cds_wfcq_dequeue_lock(struct cds_wfcq_head *head,
> struct cds_wfcq_tail *tail)
> {
> - cds_wfcq_dequeue_lock(head, tail);
> + _cds_wfcq_dequeue_lock(head, tail);
> }
>
> void cds_wfcq_dequeue_unlock(struct cds_wfcq_head *head,
> struct cds_wfcq_tail *tail)
> {
> - cds_wfcq_dequeue_unlock(head, tail);
> + _cds_wfcq_dequeue_unlock(head, tail);
> }
>
> struct cds_wfcq_node *cds_wfcq_dequeue_blocking(
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
