https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096293
--- Comment #4 from Chris Evich <cevich(a)redhat.com> ---
IMHO, the destinction would be if it could even be a problem to ignore the
second 'start'. I could see this as splitting-hairs as well, but in that case
it should probably at least be documented behavior somewhere.
I'm not a concurrency/parallel expert, but I'd guess as long as either
double-start or double-stop reports an error it's fine. It's asking for
trouble if both ignore the double call. In that case I'd call it a bug b/c:
The start or stop needn't come from the same interface (i.e. CLI and REST,
arriving at the "same" time). In other words, as long as one way (start or
stop) ignores doubles, but the other way makes a stink, there are unlikely to
be any races possible in customer use/calls.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.