Re: [9fans] double lock in proc.c

[Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 976 bytes --]

I'm not convinced that I recall not being convinced ... :)

Essentially I changed the order of lock acquire/release so that the
canlock() loop in proc.c:/^postnote could be eliminated.  Not significant
for performance, but it seemed more elegant and I think it also avoided
looking at any shared data outside code regions protected by a lock.

This was many years ago (when my now-white beard was still merely grey).
Not worth going back to reconstruct the arguments, but I'll send Giacomo
and Nemo a copy of my proc.c to examine for themselves.

On 24 July 2017 at 20:13, Fran. J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org> wrote:

> do you remember the proposal?
> thanks
>
> El 24 jul 2017, a las 18:39, Erik Quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
> escribió:
>
> I had a discussion with Richard about this a few years ago.  Richard was
> no longer convinced of the solution.  at the time I agreed with his
> reasoning.  the comment should be changed.
>
> - erik
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1576 bytes --]