John (J5) Palmieri
johnp at redhat.com
Wed Sep 13 13:09:47 PDT 2006
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
John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at redhat.com>
More information about the dbus