From: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>,
Brandon Casey <drafnel@gmail.com>,
"git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] avoid bogus "recursion detected in die handler" message
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:27:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABPQNSbdYSbb5KrMDp8gKPTJcbjq2j91G3kJwrTMz=rJUydGuA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130416194418.GA7187@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 04:13:56PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>
>> > I'm not clear on what you are suggesting. That we protect only the main
>> > thread from recursion, or that we drop the check entirely? Or that we
>> > implement thread-local storage for this case without using pthread_once?
>>
>> Anything(*) that does not require pthread_once. A pthread_once
>> implementation on Windows would be tricky and voluminous and and on top of
>> it very likely to be done differently for gcc and MSVC. I don't like to go
>> there if we can avoid it.
This seems to have been settled as a "we don't need to go there"
already, but just in case; here's an implementation of
PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER using double-checked locks, and it would
probably be repurposable to do pthread_once if needed:
https://github.com/kusma/git/commit/c2d7190ed64652c3ac8ea1f2800ff8e7d0b6c01e
Yes, it's not pretty, it's error-prone; the best thing would be not to do it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-23 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-15 23:06 [PATCH 0/3] avoid bogus "recursion detected in die handler" message Jeff King
2013-04-15 23:08 ` [PATCH 1/3] usage: refactor die-recursion checks Jeff King
2013-04-15 23:45 ` Eric Sunshine
2013-04-15 23:47 ` Jeff King
2013-04-16 0:11 ` Brandon Casey
2013-04-16 0:42 ` Jeff King
2013-04-16 1:41 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-04-16 2:34 ` Brandon Casey
2013-04-16 2:50 ` Jeff King
2013-04-16 7:18 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-04-16 13:01 ` Jeff King
2013-04-16 14:13 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-04-16 19:44 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] avoid bogus "recursion detected in die handler" message Jeff King
2013-04-16 19:46 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] usage: allow pluggable die-recursion checks Jeff King
2013-04-16 19:50 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] run-command: use thread-aware die_is_recursing routine Jeff King
2013-04-16 22:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-17 0:49 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] avoid bogus "recursion detected in die handler" message Jonathan Nieder
2013-04-17 1:37 ` Jeff King
2013-04-23 21:27 ` Erik Faye-Lund [this message]
2013-04-15 23:08 ` [PATCH 2/3] run-command: factor out running_main_thread function Jeff King
2013-04-16 1:45 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-04-16 2:53 ` Jeff King
2013-04-15 23:09 ` [PATCH 3/3] usage: do not check die recursion outside main thread 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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CABPQNSbdYSbb5KrMDp8gKPTJcbjq2j91G3kJwrTMz=rJUydGuA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=kusmabite@gmail.com \
--cc=drafnel@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/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.
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).