Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 19:26:55 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com>, Daniel Eischen <deischen@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Koop Mast <kwm@rainbow-runner.nl>, freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Mutexes and error checking Message-ID: <51EC0BCF.6080501@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130721160220.GA38417@stack.nl> 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> <20130721160220.GA38417@stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 21/07/2013 19:02 Jilles Tjoelker said the following: > So I think allowing pthread_mutex_unlock() by a different thread would > be a step backwards. There is something else that bothers me too. Properly written code always "knows" whether it has a lock or not. It does not try to unlock on a whim. Apparently the software in question is not properly written. Nevertheless, it takes care to check return status of pthread_mutex_unlock(). And, to add insult to injury, it depends on OS-specific behavior in doing so. That seems like "two wrongs make a right" thing. I understand that "life is such", etc, but it hurts to see us bend for such a backwards code. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51EC0BCF.6080501>