<div dir="ltr">Thanks Ben,<div><br></div><div style>It all makes sense now.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Ben Pfaff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:blp@nicira.com" target="_blank">blp@nicira.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 05:34:26PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ben Pfaff <<a href="mailto:blp@nicira.com">blp@nicira.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:49:11AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:<br>
> > > The 2/17. 3/17 look good to me.<br>
> ><br>
</div><div class="im">> > > For this patch, want to ask few questions:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > 1. why does the previous implementation cannot guarantee thread safety<br>
> > (An<br>
> > > example?)? Is this related to the sigchld_ related functions?<br>
> ><br>
> > A single-threaded process can ensure that a signal handler doesn't<br>
> > run during a section of code by blocking and unblocking the signal<br>
> > around that section of code. A multithreaded process can't do that,<br>
> > because the signal handler might get invoked from any thread.<br>
><br>
> Seem to me that we make a rule here. We only want single threaded process<br>
> to call "process_init() and process_start()", right?<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, the later patch "Add thread safety comments" adds such comments.<br>
<div class="im">><br>
> Also, I want to ask why do you remove the sigchld_ related functions? Is<br>
> that because the "xpthread_sigmask()" is not thread safe?<br>
<br>
</div>I removed them because, after the patch, they were no longer used.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>