Re: r17214, JavaHL thread local storeage and reentrant calls

On 11/14/05, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.

Thanks!

> 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).

A -0 does not block the merge.

> (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).

Yes, that makes sense to me.

-garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 15 00:24:34 2005