(fixup) [PATCH] forkables: use dynloaded dll's IndexNumber as dirname
Wed Mar 1 19:18:00 GMT 2017
On 02/23/2017 03:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> I'm inclined to promote the "forkables" code to master. I just have a
> few points before we do that:
> - Revert bumping of CYGWIN_VERSION_SHARED_DATA. We only have to do that
> if the shared region changes in an incompatible way. But this is just
> adding a member to the end.
As long as properly aligned, even int-access should be atomic:
Is it ok to add the new member as 'char' rather than 'int'?
> - I'm looking a bit cross-eyed on the usage of forkables_needs and
> cygwin_shared->prefer_forkable_hardlinks. It seems to me as if the
> split between those two isn't quite right and the fact that both
> share information seems error prone.
> IMHO prefer_forkable_hardlinks should actually be the single marker
> for the per-installation state. After startup of the first process it
> should be "unknown" (0) by default. At startup it's set to one of
> "disabled" (-1) no NTFS or dir is missing
> "enabled" (+1) NTFS and dir exists
> That sets the state once and for all by the first Cygwin process in
> the system.
The initial check now is moved to dll_list::forkable_ntnamesize(),
which is called by dll_list::alloc().
What about the renaming cygwin_shared->prefer_forkable_hardlinks
The new dll_list::forkables_supported() replaces the "unknown","impossible",
"disabled" values. I've thought about inlining into dll_init.h, but that
would require to include "shared_info.h": Is there a specific reason behind
dll_init.h not having any #include right now?
> Consequentially, forkables_needs should only reflect the per-process
> - Shouldn't forkables_needs be renamed to forkables_needed?
I've further simplified and replaced "enum forkables_needs" with
"bool forkables_created", because the "needless" value now is
implemented as "first fork tries without hardlinks". So as soon as
request_forkables() is entered, hardlinks aren't "needless" any more.
> That's all. There are a few minor formatting issues, but they are
Do you prefer another patch series with this patch applied as fixups?
Thanks a lot!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 11556 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Cygwin-patches