Re: [PATCH] LockAcquireExtended improvement

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 11:38:35PM -0700, Will Mortensen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:14 PM Will Mortensen <will(at)extrahop(dot)com> wrote:
>> This comment on ProcSleep() seems to have the values of dontWait
>> backward (double negatives are tricky):
>>
>> * Result: PROC_WAIT_STATUS_OK if we acquired the lock,
>> PROC_WAIT_STATUS_ERROR
>> * if not (if dontWait = true, this is a deadlock; if dontWait = false, we
>> * would have had to wait).
>>
>> Also there's a minor typo in a comment in LockAcquireExtended():
>>
>> * Check the proclock entry status. If dontWait = true, this is an
>> * expected case; otherwise, it will open happen if something in the
>> * ipc communication doesn't work correctly.
>>
>> "open" should be "only".
>
> Here's a patch fixing those typos.

Perhaps, this, err.. Should not have been named "dontWait" but
"doWait" ;)

Anyway, this goes way back in time and it is deep in the stack
(LockAcquireExtended, etc.) so it is too late to change: the patch
should be OK as it is.
--
Michael