In skia_test.cc, atomics -> mutex.

In skia_test.cc, atomics -> mutex.

These guys are not heavily contended nor speed critical.  No need for atomics,
plus this makes tsan stop complaining (correctly) about reading fNextIndex
unsafely in onEnd.

I took a look at failCount/fFailCount, which I think is safely atomic and quite
conveniently so:  It's never read until all the threads which could possibly
increment it have terminated (except for the one where it was created,
obviously).  We could guard it with a mutex too, but maybe we can let this one
slide.

BUG=

Committed: http://code.google.com/p/skia/source/detail?r=11561

[bungeman-skia, 2013-10-01 17:13:09]

lgtm, with some nay saying about having another generically named mutex.

https://codereview.chromium.org/25357002/diff/3001/tests/skia_test.cpp
File tests/skia_test.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/25357002/diff/3001/tests/skia_test.cpp#newcod...
tests/skia_test.cpp:112: SkMutex fMutex;  // Guards fNextIndex and fPending.
Can we avoid the name fMutex? Maybe fStartEndMutex or something in order to name
what it is protecting (it essentially serializes starting and ending of tests).

[mtklein, 2013-10-01 17:16:25]

https://codereview.chromium.org/25357002/diff/3001/tests/skia_test.cpp
File tests/skia_test.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/25357002/diff/3001/tests/skia_test.cpp#newcod...
tests/skia_test.cpp:112: SkMutex fMutex;  // Guards fNextIndex and fPending.
On 2013/10/01 17:13:09, bungeman1 wrote:
> Can we avoid the name fMutex? Maybe fStartEndMutex or something in order to
name
> what it is protecting (it essentially serializes starting and ending of
tests).

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-01 17:16:30]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://skia-tree-status.appspot.com/cq/mtklein@google.com/25357002/7001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-01 18:44:01]

Change committed as 11561