Are varnish subroutines reentrant?

[Jonathan Matthews]

On 20 March 2011 21:26, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> In message <AANLkTimj+J0rhF25PzvUoRtrB6xQf_9ys7LOB0sZxSaV at mail.gmail.com>, Jona
> than Matthews writes:
>>Would I be correct in assuming that any subroutines not using inline C
>>are reentrant?
>>I'm talking about non-defaulted, site-specific subroutines here, not
>>vcl_* ones, as I presume the question is possibly meaningless for the
>>vcl_* set.
>
> It would probably be a lot more easy to answer, if you told me the
> names of the subroutines you are interested in.

They're ones that I'm defining in my VCL. They're site-specific helper
functions that don't exist in the default VCL.

I'm not asking for an analysis of the reentrant nature of a specific
algorithm or block of code, just to know if there's anything
underlying the VCL at any specific points in the route through the
standard subroutines that would make being reentrant more complex to
deal with than solely making sure the algorithm is reentrant.  If that
makes sense :-)

Jonathan
-- 
Jonathan Matthews
London, UK
http://www.jpluscplusm.com/contact.html