John (J5) Palmieri
johnp at redhat.com
Wed Sep 13 13:20:04 PDT 2006
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>
More information about the dbus