On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:11:30PM +0800, Liu Yuan wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:58:07PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > > At Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:50:19 +0800, > > Liu Yuan wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:42:29PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > > > > At Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:31:56 +0800, > > > > Liu Yuan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This allow us to call even handling functions in worker thread > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Liu Yuan <namei.u...@gmail.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > I think this change is dangerous. This permits worker threads to > > > > unregister events even if these events are processed in the main > > > > thread. Making a new work queue and delegate it to register/unregister > > > > events would be safer. > > > > > > This scheme is not pratical for async request. > > > > > > This is just internal API, which are supported to be called by programmers > > > and check it is correct. > > > > The checking will cost us lots of time. The problem is a race > > condition caused by multiple threads. > > Why we would face this kind of problem? we can make sure at any time, there > will > be a single thread manipulate it, be it worker or main thread. > > I think we are talking about different issues, you are supposed that events > handling will be generically thread-safe for multiple threads. But this > wouldn't > happen I think. Instead, assumption 'one event will be only be manipulated by > single entity (thus no multiple threads case)' will hold true in the long run.
I want to clarify that I'm making register/ungister thread safe, not 'event' itself thread safe, just allow us to call register/ungister in the worker thread besides main thread and we oursevles should make sure the calling of register and unregister are safe and correct. Thanks Yuan -- sheepdog mailing list sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog
