On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 23:45, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Brice Goglin, le Thu 18 Mar 2010 23:37:57 +0100, a écrit :
>> Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> > Brice Goglin, le Thu 18 Mar 2010 22:58:35 +0100, a écrit :
>> >> Bert Wesarg wrote:
>> >>> Make the linux backend more re-entrant safe by using readdir_
Brice Goglin, le Thu 18 Mar 2010 23:37:57 +0100, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Brice Goglin, le Thu 18 Mar 2010 22:58:35 +0100, a écrit :
> >> Bert Wesarg wrote:
> >>> Make the linux backend more re-entrant safe by using readdir_r() instead
> >>> of readdir().
> >>
> >> Changing so many li
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Brice Goglin, le Thu 18 Mar 2010 22:58:35 +0100, a écrit :
>
>> Bert Wesarg wrote:
>>
>>> Make the linux backend more re-entrant safe by using readdir_r() instead
>>> of readdir().
>>>
>> Changing so many lines because of bugs that don't exist yet doesn't
>>
Brice Goglin, le Thu 18 Mar 2010 22:58:35 +0100, a écrit :
> Bert Wesarg wrote:
> > Make the linux backend more re-entrant safe by using readdir_r() instead
> > of readdir().
>
> Changing so many lines because of bugs that don't exist yet doesn't
> look like a good idea to me.
Err, they do alread
Bert Wesarg wrote:
> Make the linux backend more re-entrant safe by using readdir_r() instead
> of readdir().
>
Changing so many lines because of bugs that don't exist yet doesn't look
like a good idea to me. If we ever want to parallelize the bottom of the
discovery stack (or whatever needs re