Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:26:12 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: threads/150889: PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER + pthread_mutex_destroy () == EINVAL Message-ID: <201009240926.12958.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201009232348.45201.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <201009232220.o8NMK3fX011639@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1009231839080.18138@sea.ntplx.net> <201009232348.45201.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:48:40 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Thursday 23 September 2010 06:44 pm, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > You shouldn't have to call pthread_mutex_init() on a mutex > > initialized with PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER. Our implementation > > should auto initialize the mutex when it is first used; if it > > doesn't, I think that is a bug. > > Ah, I see. I verified that libthr does it correctly. However, that's > a hack and it is far from real static allocation although it should > work pretty well in reality, IMHO. More over, it will have a > side-effect, i.e., any destroyed mutex may be resurrected if it is > used again. POSIX seems to say it should return EINVAL when it > happens. :-( I think the fix there is that we should put a different value ((void *)1 for example) into "destroyed" mutex objects than 0 so that destroyed mutexes can be differentiated from statically initialized mutexes. This would also allow us to properly return EBUSY, etc. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201009240926.12958.jhb>