From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Mar  5 15:26:17 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B72F52E3
 for <freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org>; Thu,  5 Mar 2015 15:26:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C65F838
 for <freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org>; Thu,  5 Mar 2015 15:26:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118])
 by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t25FQHge046209
 for <freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:26:17 GMT
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 198216] According to man page for pthread_cond_destroy it
 returns EBUSY error code, but it never does
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:26:17 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: Documentation
X-Bugzilla-Component: Documentation
X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People
X-Bugzilla-Who: kib@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: New
X-Bugzilla-Priority: ---
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-198216-9-qYfRTcfWXg@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-198216-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-198216-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Documentation project <freebsd-doc.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-doc>,
 <mailto:freebsd-doc-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-doc/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-doc@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-doc-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc>,
 <mailto:freebsd-doc-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:26:17 -0000

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198216

--- Comment #2 from Konstantin Belousov <kib@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to John Baldwin from comment #1)

Such check is racy on both sides.  It can report that condvar is busy while it
is no longer such, and in reverse, it can delete a condvar which is started
being used.

Of course, if application allows such race, it is buggy.  But my point is that
threading library implementation cannot make this check non-racy without
applicatin cooperation.

That said, I would prefer not to add the check, at least because we cannot
guarantee that EBUSY is returned always, and that what the error is returned,
it actually happen.

Might be, some wording in the man page explaining the details is due.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.