On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 03:49:58PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 12:50 PM Bharath Rupireddy > <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> We could have used that variable for an assert like >> Assert(state->worker <= shared->nTapes) in worker_freeze_result_tape() >> before accessing shared->tapes[state->worker] = output; as sometimes >> state->worker is being set to -1. But, it seems like we reach >> worker_freeze_result_tape(), only when WORKER(state) is true. So, we >> don't need that extra Assert and removing nTapes variable makes sense >> to me. > > Right, but anyway IMHO adding extra shared memory variables for just > and assert purposes doesn't make sense.
FWIW, I disagree with the removal of this variable because it is useful to track down the number of members in a flexible array at shmem level. Even if you don't use that in some sanity checks for code paths, which I think we actually should really do for at least inittapes() and leader_takeover_tapes() when it comes to the number of participants assumed to exist, that's useful for debugging purposes. Robert, this code has been introduced by 9da0cc3, could you comment on that? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
