From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Terrific Dead Lock Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:20:29 +0000 Message-ID: <87k5k1c4zm.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <8763vq6yvv.fsf@gnu.org> <87y78lioxa.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205796048 18554 80.91.229.12 (17 Mar 2008 23:20:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:20:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 18 00:21:16 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JbOdo-0002Se-9t for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:21:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JbOdE-0003XI-BY for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:20:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JbOdB-0003U3-AD for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:20:37 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JbOdA-0003Sd-0C for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:20:36 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JbOd9-0003SU-SL for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:20:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JbOd6-00061f-1R; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:20:32 -0400 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-145-183-175.range86-145.btcentralplus.com [86.145.183.175]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEDAD1F6767; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:20:30 +0000 (GMT) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [192.168.0.10]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357C53800A; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:20:30 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <87y78lioxa.fsf@gnu.org> (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s's?= message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:24:17 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:7079 Archived-At: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > Hi, > > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > >> Two possibilities to fix it: >> >> 1. Copy `srcprop.[ch]' and `eval.c' bits from HEAD to 1.8. After all, >> it's probably solid enough (I use almost only HEAD). See [0] for >> an overview of the initial patch. It doesn't break the public API >> nor the ABI, but it (re)moves stuff from the `srcprop.h'. >> >> 2. Remove the critical section from 1.8 and synchronize accesses to >> `srcprops_freelist' with a private mutex, assuming that's a correct >> fix. I prefer (1). > The second approach is actually wrong: we'd need to acquire a mutex in > `srcprops_free ()' to synchronize accesses to `srcprops_freelist', but > we can't do it since `srcprops_free ()' is called during GC---which is > why there was a critical section in the first place I suppose. > > Thus the first approach seems unavoidable. Attached is the exact patch. > It removes non-public macros and data types from `srcprop.h', which is > acceptable IMO. > > OK to apply? Basically yes, but two thoughts: - Can I just take a couple more days to review the srcprops changes in detail? It's important for my debugging work, and I recall having some concern when Han-Wen implemented this... Looking at the diffs quickly again now, I can't see any reason for that concern, but I'd like to be sure. - Although I agree in principle that all those macros shouldn't be in srcprop.h, do we really need to make that change now? I think we can just apply Han-Wen's changes to the macros in srcprop.h, without moving them to srcprop.c. Regards, Neil