Re: r17214, JavaHL thread local storeage and reentrant calls

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:41:10PM +0000, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> [...]

In fact, after going through all this again, I've just reviewed the change
itself, and I'm happy that I understand it thoroughly enough that I've
just voted +1 on it in STATUS.

Out of interest, does dlr's -0 act as a veto, or is the change approved
regardless? (I'd still prefer we didn't merge it until everyone's happy,
of course, but I just wonder what it means in practice).

(Regarding the issue mentioned in the STATUS log message: "concurrent
calls into the JNI library not completing in LIFO order". This won't
be a problem either, since concurrent calls into JNI must originate
from different Java threads, and to be concurrent, must be running on
different OS threads, so there'll be a different linked-list for each
OS thread).

Regards,
Malcolm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 15 00:22:49 2005