On 05/16/2014 05:59 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:47:17AM -0400, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 04:44:41PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:39:08PM +0200, mzatko@redhat.com wrote:
+ + pr "gl_recursive_lock_define_initialized(static, global_lock)\n"; static? eh, a mistake
I suspect this only allows one libguestfs handle per process into the critical section at once. I think the lock needs to be per-handle unless I'm misunderstanding what this is for. Agreed, any locking should be per-handle, and I wouldn't expect to need to use recursive mutexes either. Internal libguestfs code shouldn't be calling back out to the public libguestfs API surely, so shouldn't need to have re-entrancy I'll rework it as per-handle, will try non-recursive variant as well Actually libguestfs does call itself quite a lot. Whether it should call itself through the public API or not is another matter -- we could change that fairly easily. Is there a problem with recursive mutexes?
Rich.