Re: [389-devel] please review: Ticket 509 - lock-free access to be->be_suffixlock

2012-12-07 Thread Rich Megginson
On 12/07/2012 09:56 AM, Mark Reynolds wrote: Hi Ludwig, In Ticket 507, that change did not help after all, and will probably be removed. It's hard to tell. I'm having some problems getting reliable reports. We are working on that. As far as I can tell, this is the only option we have f

Re: [389-devel] please review: Ticket 509 - lock-free access to be->be_suffixlock

2012-12-07 Thread Ludwig Krispenz
Hi, On 12/07/2012 05:56 PM, Mark Reynolds wrote: Hi Ludwig, In Ticket 507, that change did not help after all, and will probably be removed. As far as I can tell, this is the only option we have for ticket 509. yes, but the subject says lock free. So if we cannot make it lock free is it just

Re: [389-devel] please review: Ticket 509 - lock-free access to be->be_suffixlock

2012-12-07 Thread Mark Reynolds
Hi Ludwig, In Ticket 507, that change did not help after all, and will probably be removed. As far as I can tell, this is the only option we have for ticket 509. Mark On 12/07/2012 11:50 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: Hi Mark, for ticket 507 you replaced rw locks with mutex locks, now for the

Re: [389-devel] please review: Ticket 509 - lock-free access to be->be_suffixlock

2012-12-07 Thread Ludwig Krispenz
Hi Mark, for ticket 507 you replaced rw locks with mutex locks, now for the backend you replace mutex locks with rw locks ? any reason why these are better here ? Regards, Ludwig On 12/07/2012 05:48 PM, Mark Reynolds wrote: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/509 https://fedorahosted.org/3