dbus_g_thread_init()

[John (J5) Palmieri]

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. 

-- 
John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at redhat.com>