Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 11:21:59 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: Koop Mast <kwm@rainbow-runner.nl>, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mutexes and error checking Message-ID: <51EBFC97.6000504@marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307211115010.6265@sea.ntplx.net> 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> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307211115010.6265@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/21/13 11:15 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > 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. > Thanks! Joe -- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51EBFC97.6000504>