John (J5) Palmieri
johnp at redhat.com
Wed Sep 13 14:40:21 PDT 2006
Here is the patch. I committed Alex's patch as I did not see his
followup which contained the correct fixes. If it is good I want to do
an RC release tonight.
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 16:30 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 16:09 -0400, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 14:34 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> >>> John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> >>>> So removing 3 sounds the most sane.
> >>> There's nothing to remove right - it's not in cvs, alex's latest patch
> >>> is only #4 without #3 iirc.
> >>> If you combine 1 and 2 (add recursive mutex funcs without a return
> >>> value, and leave nonrecursive mutex funcs unmodified) then there's just
> >>> a small patch to add four new funcs (recursive new/free/lock/unlock),
> >>> and prefer them if they are present (make _dbus_mutex_* choose the
> >>> recursive versions if possible).
> >> Big question I just ran into while implementing this is why do we need
> >> both if we are not going to use nonrecursive mutex's if we have the
> >> recursive ones? Wouldn't the thread implementation just pass in
> >> recursive mutex functions in place of the non-recursive ones? Or are
> >> there cases where we want to use nonrecursive mutex's even if we have
> >> recursive mutex's?
> > Nevermind. Function signatures would cause errors.
> It's just a compatibility issue. I think it could be OK to just remove
> the return value from the existing mutex funcs, it might only cause
> compiler warnings and not an ABI change. But I'm not sure. It could
> cause compiler errors also.
John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at redhat.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 9953 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20060913/6c7475a1/dbus-recursive-threads.bin
More information about the dbus