Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] gc: run pre-detach operations under lock




Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> Instead, we can do something a bit simpler: take the lock
> only for the duration of the pre-detach work, then detach,
> then take it again for the post-detach work. Technically,
> this means that the post-detach lock could lose to another
> process doing pre-detach work. But in the long run this
> works out.

You might have found this part gross, but I actually don't.  It
looks like a reasonable practical compromise, and I tried to think
of a scenario that this would do a wrong thing but I didn't---it is
not like we carry information off-disk from the pre-detach to
post-detach work to cause the latter make decisions on it, so this
"split into two phrases" looks fairly safe.