On Sept. 2, 2013, 11:23 a.m., Jan Safranek wrote:
src/account/lock.h, line 19 http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/795/diff/1/?file=4429#file4429line19
why is 'tail' lock_node_t? tail.next & tail.lock are never used. IMHO it should be lock_node_t *, pointing to the last item in the list or NULL when the list is empty. It will make the code below more readable.
Robin Hack wrote: This solution has ideological reasons. Removing of last node is easier than with dynamic tail. With pointer to last element i must solve that this element is not last. Same in case, when i add new element to empty list.
Ok. I rewrote this part.
- Robin
----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/795/#review1057 -----------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 2, 2013, 9:50 a.m., Robin Hack wrote:
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/795/
(Updated Sept. 2, 2013, 9:50 a.m.)
Review request for OpenLMI Developers.
Repository: openlmi-providers
Description
Account: Added associative thread locking.
Missing files included.
Diffs
src/account/CMakeLists.txt 495d7c6e3e1e083541d3ed004518dc4539f61d48 src/account/LMI_AccountProvider.c 5abad7261331c429de0503b8bfb9f8fc180141cf src/account/lock.h PRE-CREATION src/account/lock.c PRE-CREATION
Diff: http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/795/diff/
Testing
Thanks,
Robin Hack