Re: Weird test mixup

> On 5 Apr 2024, at 07:19, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> It's been a couple of weeks since this has been sent, and this did not
> get any reviews. I'd still be happy with the simplicity of a single
> injection_points_local() that can be used to link all the injection
> points created in a single process to it, discarding them once the
> process exists with a shmem exit callback.

OK, makes sense.
I find name of the function "injection_points_local()" strange, because there is no verb in the name. How about "injection_points_set_local"?

> And I don't really see an
> argument to tweak the backend-side routines, as well.
> Comments and/or
> objections?

I'm not sure if we should refactor anything here, but InjectionPointSharedState has singular name, plural wait_counts and singular condition.
InjectionPointSharedState is already an array of injection points, maybe let's add there optional pid instead of inventing separate array of pids?

Can we set global point to 'notice', but same local to 'wait'? Looks like now we can't, but allowing to do so would make code simpler.

Besides this opportunity to simplify stuff, both patches looks good to me.

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.