Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:29:09 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include pthread_np.h src/lib/libthr pthread.map src/lib/libthr/thread thr_mutex.c Message-ID: <868x21gdtm.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10802040318q456556e4g8c63299ab67c71e8@mail.gmail.com> (Attilio Rao's message of "Mon\, 4 Feb 2008 12\:18\:37 %2B0100") References: <200802032238.m13McAbf065324@repoman.freebsd.org> <86d4rdgehd.fsf@ds4.des.no> <3bbf2fe10802040318q456556e4g8c63299ab67c71e8@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > I'm having second thoughts about this one. There is a significant > > risk of false positives if the mutex is currently locked by another > > thread. I'm wondering whether to a) change the implementation so it > > only returns true if the mutex is owned by the current thread, or b) > > change the interface so you can specify a specific thread, or NULL > > for "any". > Please don't do the latter. Semantically the right thing to do here > is to assert if the curthread owns the lock or not. Any lock should > not be interested on what is the state in regard of other locks. Thank you. That was my thought as well, but I didn't want to exclude the alternative without discussion. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?868x21gdtm.fsf>