>>>> - Why we need the notification quiesce twice? One on Line 1426-1429, >>>> another >>>> on Line 1439-1448? >>> The first one isn't strictly needed, and I could remove it with no real >>> harm, but it does allow for any pending notifications to finish delivery >>> before shutting down the thread. This isn't on a critical hot path, so >>> I figured it was more polite to allow them to complete than to nuke 'em >>> from orbit. >> Can this be achieved by changing i_mac_notify_thread() to first process all >> pending notifications before it exits the thread? > > Well, there is also the problem that I'd really prefer the notifications > to finish *before* commiting to destroy the thread, but I'd prefer not > to commit to destroy the thread until after the dls_destroy() is called. > This helps with a more graceful recovery if dls_destroy() fails for some > reason. > I meant to change i_mac_notify_thread, and delete line 1424-1429. So that you donot need to recovery if dls_destroy() fails.
> Right now it Just Works, so unless you really think it should be > altered, I'd prefer to leave it alone. > Okay. I don't feel strongly about it. Thanks - Cathy _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
