Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:57:11 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_mutex.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0303041650310.42494-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200303042149.h24LnKSQ073292@green.bikeshed.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > already own. The mtx_trylock() will fail however. Enhance the comment > > at the top of the try lock function to explain this. > > > I admit I've never actually had a use for mtx_trylock() but... wouldn't you > like to detect it and assert against it if you're not expecting it? If > jlemon's behavior is the only one that relies on that part of the semantics, > perhaps it should be another kind of mtx_trylock() call. I guess the real > question is just whether or not the assert would ever have done good for > anyone while working. It's a bit late, but it seems a it !POLA to have mtx_try_lock() fail in a situation where mtx_lock() would succeed. ? I have used try_lock once, though I eventually did it anouther way. I have always thougth of try_lock as being "Try, but instead of sleeping, come back so I can try something else instead." The implicit message here is that if 'lock()' would succeed, try_lock() would succeed.. If you don't want this then maybe it should be called "try_lock_no_recurse()" or something.. Or maybe the lock should be labled as non-recursive, so that the normal lock fails as well. Julian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0303041650310.42494-100000>