[asterisk-dev] [Code Review]: Resolve odbc segfaults by adding shared locks around usage of odbc handle in res_odbc

[jrose]

> On Feb. 27, 2012, 2:09 a.m., wdoekes wrote:
> > Looks good to go. I just hope that using exclusive locks for every query won't cause significant delays.

If it's any consolation, we can still do rwlocks in trunk once rmudgett merges his ao2 rwlock stuff in.


- jrose


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1719/#review5648
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 24, 2012, 4:44 p.m., jrose wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1719/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 24, 2012, 4:44 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Asterisk Developers, Mark Michelson, Tilghman Lesher, rmudgett, and wdoekes.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> This is a continuation of wdoekes patch seen in https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1622/
> This adds Tilghman Lesher's suggested changes.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug ASTERISK-19011.
>     https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-19011
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /branches/1.8/res/res_odbc.c 354164 
> 
> Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/1719/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> I started by confirming that the segfault could be easily reproduced with wdoekes' setup mentioned in the issue report.
> After finishing the changes to the patch, I confirmed that following the same steps no longer produced the segfault, undid the patch to double check that I was doing it right, and then decided it was safe to post this review.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jrose
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20120227/df8a248a/attachment.htm>