From: Patrick Hogg <phogg@novamoon.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pack-objects: Use packing_data lock instead of read_mutex
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 18:54:24 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFOcBz==BunV48U94ZSnc2gmBTOcOpY4XO-dPugKMUVNZGjzZA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1s54e2ju.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 5:43 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Patrick Hogg <phogg@novamoon.net> writes:
>
> > As I mentioned in the prior thread I think that it will be simpler
> > to simply use the existing lock in packing_data instead of moving
> > read_mutex. I can go back to simply moving read_mutex to the
> > packing_data struct if that that is preferable, though.
>
> I'll let others comment on this to show preference between the two
> approaches.
>
> > I also removed the #ifndef NO_PTHREADS in prepare_packing_data around
> > the initialization of &pdata->lock since I had to upgrade the lock to
> > a recursive mutex. As far as I can tell init_recursive_mutex (and
> > pthread_mutex_init for that matter) have that protection already so it
> > appears to be redundant.
>
> If you can defer "I also" to a separate patch, please do so.
> Keeping the fix alone as small as possible and not tangled with
> other changes would make it easier for people to cherry-pick the fix
> to older maintenance tracks if they choose to.
That's a fair point. To confirm (as I'm rather new to submitting git
patches), do you mean to submit a two-patch series or to just leave
out the #ifndef removal altogether for now?
If this does become a two patch series I could simply move the
read_mutex to packing_data in the first patch and merge the two
mutexes (and remove the #ifndef) in the second. That would keep the
fix alone even smaller (just the first patch) to simplify
cherry-picking.
(There is also the option of going back to the v1 change and
correcting the cleanup in the early return.)
I just want to confirm preferences first before submitting a v3 to
avoid spamming patches; I'll go whichever way the experts think is
best.
Thanks,
-Patrick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-22 23:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-19 15:43 [PATCH v2] pack-objects: Use packing_data lock instead of read_mutex Patrick Hogg
2019-01-21 10:02 ` Duy Nguyen
2019-01-22 7:28 ` Jeff King
2019-01-22 10:25 ` Duy Nguyen
2019-01-22 13:13 ` Patrick Hogg
2019-01-22 17:52 ` Elijah Newren
2019-01-22 20:37 ` Elijah Newren
2019-01-22 22:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-01-22 23:54 ` Patrick Hogg [this message]
2019-01-23 17:51 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAFOcBz==BunV48U94ZSnc2gmBTOcOpY4XO-dPugKMUVNZGjzZA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=phogg@novamoon.net \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).