On Fr, 23.04.21 11:24, Stephen Hemminger (step...@networkplumber.org) wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 16:04:33 +0100
> Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 06 Sep 2019 at 06:57:22 +, Ray, Ian (GE Healthcare) wrote:
> > > If thread-safety is a design goal (and I don’t believe that it is [1])
> > >
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 16:04:33 +0100
Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Sep 2019 at 06:57:22 +, Ray, Ian (GE Healthcare) wrote:
> > If thread-safety is a design goal (and I don’t believe that it is [1])
> > then atomic or thread-safe primitives should be used.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://lists.fre
> >while (e->state != SD_EVENT_FINISHED) {
> >r = sd_event_run(e, (uint64_t) -1);
> >
> > But since e->state is changed by another thread it
Well..then the game is up because sd-bus does not claim to be thread
safe or even aspires to be.. accessing e from different threads
On Fri, 06 Sep 2019 at 06:57:22 +, Ray, Ian (GE Healthcare) wrote:
> If thread-safety is a design goal (and I don’t believe that it is [1])
> then atomic or thread-safe primitives should be used.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2017-March/038519.html
[1] is abo
> On 5 Sep 2019, at 20.46, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> The libsystemd bus event loop is:
>
>
>while (e->state != SD_EVENT_FINISHED) {
>r = sd_event_run(e, (uint64_t) -1);
>
> But since e->state is changed by another thread it
What other thread?
> should be marked
