On 2014年08月11日 21:45, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
At Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:11:44 +0800,
Ruoyu wrote:
Nothing wrong with fixing it, alhough I don't know exactly
what will be happened if not patching it.
Signed-off-by: Ruoyu <lian...@ucweb.com>
---
sheep/vdi.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sheep/vdi.c b/sheep/vdi.c
index 05cae7b..77dc253 100644
--- a/sheep/vdi.c
+++ b/sheep/vdi.c
@@ -372,11 +372,12 @@ static bool add_new_participant(struct vdi_state_entry
*entry,
return true;
}
- idx = entry->nr_participants++;
+ idx = entry->nr_participants;
memcpy(&entry->participants[idx], owner, sizeof(*owner));
entry->participants_state[idx] =
is_modified(entry) ?
SHARED_LOCK_STATE_INVALIDATED : SHARED_LOCK_STATE_SHARED;
+ entry->nr_participants++;
I think this patch doesn't change the function. Does this fixes a bug?
It fixes a logical error. Otherwise, there should be a hole in the array
if new participant is added.
For example,
// supposed entry->nr_participants is 2;
idx = entry->nr_participants++;
// idx is 3 now;
memcpy(&entry->participants[idx], owner, sizeof(*owner));
entry->participants_state[idx] =
is_modified(entry) ?
SHARED_LOCK_STATE_INVALIDATED : SHARED_LOCK_STATE_SHARED;
// the 4th element is assigned(the 1st is array[0]), but we should
modify the 3rd one logically
Thanks,
Hitoshi
--
sheepdog mailing list
sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog
