From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <b5ad0b54f863149fd18cdbeffbddc852@hamnavoe.com>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:35:06 +0000
In-Reply-To: <7d7ee33e0ce036134194a640c6b2cc81@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] duppage
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 65c8cd1a-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> the problem we have is that we temporarily unlock
> p to acquire palloc lock, wich opens a chance for
> someone to take a ref on p, but duppage doesnt
> recheck after reqcquiering the p lock.
>
> if this happens, duppage() has to return and let
> fixfault() make a copy for its segment.

That makes sense to me.

Should we be worried that duppage returns 0 or 1 for
success or failure, but fixfault ignores the return value?