From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com (mail-lj1-f195.google.com
 [209.85.208.195])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D526469719
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:16:06 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id f13so24277241ljp.0
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Tue, 17 Mar 2020 12:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:16:03 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20200317191603.GN27301@uranus>
References: <0e7fddec984120e36c098cd546ecae4fddc726cd.1577346185.git.lvasiliev@tarantool.org>
 <20200316112356.GA27301@uranus> <11490847.O9o76ZdvQC@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <11490847.O9o76ZdvQC@localhost>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2] Add some cancellation guard
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Georgy Kirichenko <kirichenkoga@gmail.com>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:49:14PM +0300, Georgy Kirichenko wrote:
...
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * The thread should not be canceled while mutex is locked
> > > +	*/
> > > +	int old_cancel_state;
> > > +	tt_pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_DISABLE, &old_cancel_state);
> > 
> > Don't we need to disable cancel at the entry of this cpipe_destroy?
> > Thus trigger_destroy would be guarantee to finish, or it is not
> > that important in which moment we disable cancelling?
> > 
> > Other than that the patch looks ok to me, still the overall cbus
> > code looks a bit fishy. Do we really need these threads to be
> > cancellable?
> A relay thread is canceled instead of gracefully exit. Despite relay exits 

Oh my :(

> issue is addressed by my replication-form-memory patch I think this patch is 
> useful.

As I pointed I'm ok with this patch since it address an issue.
Still I don't really like the overall design. But this is a
different story...