archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Hostetler <>
To: Jeff King <>
Cc: "Randall S. Becker" <>,, "'SZEDER Gábor'" <>,
	"'Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget'" <>,
Subject: Re: [BUG] Unix Builds Requires Pthread Support (was [PATCH v4 00/12] Simple IPC Mechanism)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 09:55:57 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 5/18/21 8:11 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 07:21:33AM -0400, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
>>> In the simple-ipc API, there's an explicit "async" interface. But it's
>>> not clear to me how rich it expects the communication with the caller to
>>> be (i.e., whether we could get away with the fork() trick here). Or if
>>> it would be OK for the threading to remain an implementation detail,
>>> with one "worker" upon whom we wait for completion.
>> TBH I forgot that we still support NO_PTHREAD systems.
>> I seem to remember that we got rid of some of the non-pthread
>> stub functions at one point, but I'm fuzzy on the details.
> You're probably thinking of when we got rid of a bunch of #ifdef code
> paths in index-pack, and replaced it with stubs that turn the pthread
> calls into "do nothing" (so all the ugly stuff is in thread-utils.h
> now). But we still very much support systems that don't handle pthreads
> at all.
>> WRT to "simple ipc" (and future "builtin fsmonitor"), it's heavily
>> threaded.  There's no point in trying to fake it with forks.
>> The server side of simple ipc implements a thread pool.  And
>> the builtin fsmonitor will use a thread to monitor FS events
>> and that thread pool to respond to clients.  All driven from a
>> shared queue of events.
>> It would be a major overhaul to do all that without threads
>> -- and even that assumes that nonstop has a sufficient file
>> system notification mechanism.
> OK, that matches my guess from a brief look at the code. Thanks for
> confirming.
>> So, yes, we should ifdef it out as Peff suggests.
> The patch I sent wasn't really tested beyond confirming that "make
> NO_PTHREADS=1" finished compiling (and that test-tool simple-ipc
> barfed appropriately at runtime).
> Do you want to pick it up from there and produce a polished patch? I
> think we should deal with this prior to the v2.32.0 release (and thanks
> Randall for testing and finding it during the -rc0 period).
> -Peff

yeah, i'll take it from here and get a patch out today.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-18 13:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-17 17:46 Randall S. Becker
2021-05-18  8:23 ` Jeff King
2021-05-18 11:21   ` Jeff Hostetler
2021-05-18 12:11     ` Jeff King
2021-05-18 13:55       ` Jeff Hostetler [this message]
2021-05-18 13:37   ` Randall S. Becker
2021-05-18 13:59     ` Jeff King

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [BUG] Unix Builds Requires Pthread Support (was [PATCH v4 00/12] Simple IPC Mechanism)' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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 NNTP newsgroup(s).