Agree. As I wrote below - I will put this instance back in place for this patchset and handle it on a different one
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/19/2018 03:57 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > > On 19-Apr-18 3:48 PM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote: > >> Copy on the commit message and volatile. > >> > >> Regarding the new function defunct_and_remain_in_endless_loop () > >> I don't think I can put that in a separate patch without breaking the > >> current patch independence. > > > > How so? > > > > Just leave some panic instances in there for thread-related stuff and > > fix them up in the next patch. > > > > Also, i'm not sure sending threads into an infinite loop on panic is > > such a good idea. You might want to look at Olivier's approach [1] to > > creating threads, using pthread_barriers and pthread_kill/cancel. > > > > I haven't reviewed this one yet, but going into an infinite loop doesn't > seem like the right thing to do. > > > This does warrant a separate patch now :) > > > > -- *Arnon Warshavsky* *Qwilt | work: +972-72-2221634 | mobile: +972-50-8583058 | ar...@qwilt.com <ar...@qwilt.com>*
