Re: (ITS#5248) non-atomic signal variables

[h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no]

hyc@symas.com writes:
> As I recall, the only reason we needed the waking counter here was to
> make sure we never filled the pipe buffer, which would cause a
> single-threaded server to deadlock. We can simply set the pipe to
> nonblocking instead, and eliminate the counter.

Sounds good...

> The other point was that if there was already a pending wake event,
> there was no reason to write another one.

Aha!  Now the code makes more sense to me:-)  And if 'waking' is
just a boolean flag, we can keep it as long as it is treated that way.

#define WAKE_LISTENER(w) do { \
	if ((w) && !waking) { \
		waking = 1; \
		tcp_write( SLAP_FD2SOCK(wake_sds[1]), "0", 1 ); \
	} \
} while (0)

I need to stare at it a bit to look for race conditions with readers.
I don't suggest to hold next RE24 for this though.  It's hardly urgent,
and should be tested a bit --without-threads first.

-- 
Regards,
Hallvard