Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 21 Jul 2013 11:15:58 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
To:        Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com>
Cc:        Koop Mast <kwm@rainbow-runner.nl>, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Mutexes and error checking
Message-ID:  <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307211115010.6265@sea.ntplx.net>
In-Reply-To: <51EB5EC4.6050802@marcuscom.com>
References:  <51E71D4F.5030502@marcuscom.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307181059460.22570@sea.ntplx.net> <51E8061B.60906@marcuscom.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307181118100.22570@sea.ntplx.net> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307182144030.23634@sea.ntplx.net> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307190152440.25756@sea.ntplx.net> <51EB5EC4.6050802@marcuscom.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:

> On 7/19/13 1:55 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>>
>> Ugh!  I misread the problem when I tried to recreate it and
>> test it on Solaris, so forget that last email.
>>
>> It seems Solaris behaves like Linux with PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL
>> and _unlocking_ mutexes owned by other threads (dead or not).
>> Solaris only returns EPERM for PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK
>> mutexes.
>
> Given that, should we do the same?

I'm testing a patch.  Give me a couple of days to get
some more cycles.

-- 
DE




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1307211115010.6265>