Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 22:20:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: jasone@canonware.com, lists@tar.com Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Another Serious libc_r problem Message-ID: <199810210220.WAA06394@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >The point I was trying to make is that the > >code does _not_ deadlock for the default (fast mutex). > > Yes, I missed your point. > > >I'm not sure that > >this is a bug, but it is different than the behavior I've seen on other > >systems. Can someone say whether this is allowed by the POSIX spec? POSIX says that "an attempt by the current owner of a mutex to relock the mutex results in undefined behaviour". It also says that if the current thread already owns the mutex, then EDEADLK should be returned. I don't see any kind of counting mutex in the POSIX spec. It seems our pthread_mutex_lock() is wrong, and should return EDEADLK in this case. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199810210220.WAA06394>