From 79ed43004f82508fc5b75e5eaf2f890cd63ad1fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christopher Faylor Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 01:19:45 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] * thread.cc: Use "%E" in *_printf throughout rather than calling GetLastError. GNUify comments. (__pthread_mutex_lock): Don't return error on EBUSY since that just means that the mutex has already been initialized. --- winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog | 7 + winsup/cygwin/thread.cc | 303 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 158 deletions(-) diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog b/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog index 970291ac3..077111f48 100644 --- a/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog +++ b/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +2002-09-29 Christopher Faylor + + * thread.cc: Use "%E" in *_printf throughout rather than calling + GetLastError. GNUify comments. + (__pthread_mutex_lock): Don't return error on EBUSY since that just + means that the mutex has already been initialized. + 2002-09-30 Robert Collins * pthread.cc (pthread_mutex_init): Use new pthread_mutex::init. diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc index 413d6946b..0f27ef3d4 100644 --- a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc +++ b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ pthread::self () void pthread::setTlsSelfPointer (pthread *thisThread) { - /*the OS doesn't check this for <= 64 Tls entries (pre win2k) */ + /* the OS doesn't check this for <= 64 Tls entries (pre win2k) */ TlsSetValue (MT_INTERFACE->thread_self_dwTlsIndex, thisThread); } @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ pthread::precreate (pthread_attr *newattr) { pthread_mutex *verifyable_mutex_obj = &mutex; - /*already running ? */ + /* already running ? */ if (win32_obj_id) return; @@ -320,8 +320,8 @@ pthread::precreate (pthread_attr *newattr) cancel_event = ::CreateEvent (NULL,TRUE,FALSE,NULL); if (!cancel_event) { - system_printf ("couldn't create cancel event, this %p LastError %d", this, GetLastError () ); - /*we need the event for correct behaviour */ + system_printf ("couldn't create cancel event, this %p LastError %E", this); + /* we need the event for correct behaviour */ magic = 0; return; } @@ -356,11 +356,11 @@ void pthread::postcreate () { InterlockedIncrement (&MT_INTERFACE->threadcount); - /*FIXME: set the priority appropriately for system contention scope */ + /* FIXME: set the priority appropriately for system contention scope */ if (attr.inheritsched == PTHREAD_EXPLICIT_SCHED) { - /*FIXME: set the scheduling settings for the new thread */ - /*sched_thread_setparam (win32_obj_id, attr.schedparam); */ + /* FIXME: set the scheduling settings for the new thread */ + /* sched_thread_setparam (win32_obj_id, attr.schedparam); */ } } @@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ pthread::exit (void *value_ptr) mutex.Lock (); // cleanup if thread is in detached state and not joined - if (__pthread_equal (&joiner, &thread ) ) + if (__pthread_equal (&joiner, &thread)) delete this; else { @@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ pthread::testcancel (void) if (cancelstate == PTHREAD_CANCEL_DISABLE) return; - if (WAIT_OBJECT_0 == WaitForSingleObject (cancel_event, 0 ) ) + if (WAIT_OBJECT_0 == WaitForSingleObject (cancel_event, 0)) cancel_self (); } @@ -672,7 +672,7 @@ pthread::push_cleanup_handler (__pthread_cleanup_handler *handler) // TODO: do it? api_fatal ("Attempt to push a cleanup handler across threads"); handler->next = cleanup_stack; - InterlockedExchangePointer (&cleanup_stack, handler ); + InterlockedExchangePointer (&cleanup_stack, handler); } void @@ -761,15 +761,15 @@ pthread_cond::pthread_cond (pthread_condattr *attr):verifyable_object (PTHREAD_C this->mutex = NULL; this->waiting = 0; - this->win32_obj_id = ::CreateEvent (&sec_none_nih, false, /*auto signal reset - which I think is pthreads like ? */ - false, /*start non signaled */ - NULL /*no name */); - /*TODO: make a shared mem mutex if out attributes request shared mem cond */ + this->win32_obj_id = ::CreateEvent (&sec_none_nih, false, /* auto signal reset - which I think is pthreads like ? */ + false, /* start non signaled */ + NULL /* no name */); + /* TODO: make a shared mem mutex if out attributes request shared mem cond */ cond_access = NULL; if ((temperr = pthread_mutex_init (&this->cond_access, NULL))) { system_printf ("couldn't init mutex, this %p errno %d", this, temperr); - /*we need the mutex for correct behaviour */ + /* we need the mutex for correct behaviour */ magic = 0; } @@ -808,7 +808,7 @@ pthread_cond::BroadCast () { if (pthread_mutex_unlock (&cond_access)) system_printf ("Failed to unlock condition variable access mutex, this %p", this); - /*This isn't and API error - users are allowed to call this when no threads + /* This isn't and API error - users are allowed to call this when no threads are waiting system_printf ("Broadcast called with invalid mutex"); */ @@ -903,12 +903,12 @@ pthread_cond::TimedWait (DWORD dwMilliseconds) switch (rv) { case WAIT_FAILED: - return 0; /*POSIX doesn't allow errors after we modify the mutex state */ + return 0; /* POSIX doesn't allow errors after we modify the mutex state */ case WAIT_ABANDONED: case WAIT_TIMEOUT: return ETIMEDOUT; case WAIT_OBJECT_0: - return 0; /*we have been signaled */ + return 0; /* we have been signaled */ default: return 0; } @@ -1006,7 +1006,7 @@ pthread_key::~pthread_key () int pthread_key::set (const void *value) { - /*the OS function doesn't perform error checking */ + /* the OS function doesn't perform error checking */ TlsSetValue (dwTlsIndex, (void *) value); return 0; } @@ -1038,9 +1038,9 @@ pthread_key::recreateKeyFromBuffer () void pthread_key::run_destructor () { - if (destructor) + if (destructor) { - void *oldValue = get(); + void *oldValue = get (); if (oldValue) { set (NULL); @@ -1049,29 +1049,28 @@ pthread_key::run_destructor () } } -/*pshared mutexs: - - * REMOVED FROM CURRENT. These can be reinstated with the daemon, when all the - gymnastics can be a lot easier. - - *the mutex_t (size 4) is not used as a verifyable object because we cannot - *guarantee the same address space for all processes. - *we use the following: - *high bit set (never a valid address). - *second byte is reserved for the priority. - *third byte is reserved - *fourth byte is the mutex id. (max 255 cygwin mutexs system wide). - *creating mutex's does get slower and slower, but as creation is a one time - *job, it should never become an issue - * - *And if you're looking at this and thinking, why not an array in cygwin for all mutexs, - *- you incur a penalty on _every_ mutex call and you have toserialise them all. - *... Bad karma. - * - *option 2? put everything in userspace and update the ABI? - *- bad karma as well - the HANDLE, while identical across process's, - *Isn't duplicated, it's reopened. - */ +/* pshared mutexs: + + REMOVED FROM CURRENT. These can be reinstated with the daemon, when all the + gymnastics can be a lot easier. + + the mutex_t (size 4) is not used as a verifyable object because we cannot + guarantee the same address space for all processes. + we use the following: + high bit set (never a valid address). + second byte is reserved for the priority. + third byte is reserved + fourth byte is the mutex id. (max 255 cygwin mutexs system wide). + creating mutex's does get slower and slower, but as creation is a one time + job, it should never become an issue + + And if you're looking at this and thinking, why not an array in cygwin for all mutexs, + - you incur a penalty on _every_ mutex call and you have toserialise them all. + ... Bad karma. + + option 2? put everything in userspace and update the ABI? + - bad karma as well - the HANDLE, while identical across process's, + Isn't duplicated, it's reopened. */ /* static members */ bool @@ -1101,21 +1100,20 @@ pthread_mutex::isGoodInitializerOrObject (pthread_mutex_t const *mutex) HANDLE pthread_mutex::mutexInitializationLock; /* We can only be called once. - * TODO: (no rush) use a non copied memory section to - * hold an initialization flag. - */ + TODO: (no rush) use a non copied memory section to + hold an initialization flag. */ void pthread_mutex::initMutex () { mutexInitializationLock = CreateMutex (NULL, FALSE, NULL); if (!mutexInitializationLock) - api_fatal ("Could not create win32 Mutex for pthread mutex static initializer support. The error code was %d\n", GetLastError()); - + api_fatal ("Could not create win32 Mutex for pthread mutex static initializer support. The error code was %E"); + } pthread_mutex::pthread_mutex (pthread_mutexattr *attr):verifyable_object (PTHREAD_MUTEX_MAGIC) { - /*attr checked in the C call */ + /* attr checked in the C call */ if (attr && attr->pshared == PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED) { // fail @@ -1273,7 +1271,7 @@ semaphore::Post () int semaphore::TryWait () { - /*FIXME: signals should be able to interrupt semaphores... + /* FIXME: signals should be able to interrupt semaphores... *We probably need WaitForMultipleObjects here. */ if (WaitForSingleObject (win32_obj_id, 0) == WAIT_TIMEOUT) @@ -1314,7 +1312,7 @@ verifyable_object::~verifyable_object () magic = 0; } -/*Generic memory acccess routine - where should it live ? */ +/* Generic memory acccess routine - where should it live ? */ int __stdcall check_valid_pointer (void const *pointer) { @@ -1358,7 +1356,7 @@ pthread::thread_init_wrapper (void *_arg) struct _reent local_clib = _REENT_INIT (local_clib); struct sigaction _sigs[NSIG]; - sigset_t _sig_mask; /*one set for everything to ignore. */ + sigset_t _sig_mask; /* one set for everything to ignore. */ LONG _sigtodo[NSIG + __SIGOFFSET]; // setup signal structures @@ -1373,7 +1371,7 @@ pthread::thread_init_wrapper (void *_arg) local_winsup._process_logmask = LOG_UPTO (LOG_DEBUG); - /*This is not checked by the OS !! */ + /* This is not checked by the OS !! */ if (!TlsSetValue (MT_INTERFACE->reent_index, &local_reent)) system_printf ("local storage for thread couldn't be set"); @@ -1402,7 +1400,7 @@ pthread::thread_init_wrapper (void *_arg) // ??? This code only runs if the thread exits by returning. // it's all now in __pthread_exit (); #endif - /*never reached */ + /* never reached */ return 0; } @@ -1448,8 +1446,8 @@ pthread::once (pthread_once_t *once_control, void (*init_routine) (void)) return 0; pthread_mutex_lock (&once_control->mutex); - /*Here we must set a cancellation handler to unlock the mutex if needed */ - /*but a cancellation handler is not the right thing. We need this in the thread + /* Here we must set a cancellation handler to unlock the mutex if needed */ + /* but a cancellation handler is not the right thing. We need this in the thread *cleanup routine. Assumption: a thread can only be in one pthread_once routine *at a time. Stote a mutex_t *in the pthread_structure. if that's non null unlock *on pthread_exit (); @@ -1459,7 +1457,7 @@ pthread::once (pthread_once_t *once_control, void (*init_routine) (void)) init_routine (); once_control->state = 1; } - /*Here we must remove our cancellation handler */ + /* Here we must remove our cancellation handler */ pthread_mutex_unlock (&once_control->mutex); return 0; } @@ -1473,24 +1471,22 @@ pthread::cancel (pthread_t thread) return thread->cancel (); } -/* - *Races in pthread_atfork: - *We are race safe in that any additions to the lists are made via - *InterlockedExchangePointer. - *However, if the user application doesn't perform syncronisation of some sort - *It's not guaranteed that a near simultaneous call to pthread_atfork and fork - *will result in the new atfork handlers being calls. - *More rigorous internal syncronisation isn't needed as the user program isn't - *guaranteeing their own state. - * - *as far as multiple calls to pthread_atfork, the worst case is simultaneous calls - *will result in an indeterminate order for parent and child calls (what gets inserted - *first isn't guaranteed.) - * - *There is one potential race... Does the result of InterlockedExchangePointer - *get committed to the return location _before_ any context switches can occur? - *If yes, we're safe, if no, we're not. - */ +/* Races in pthread_atfork: + We are race safe in that any additions to the lists are made via + InterlockedExchangePointer. + However, if the user application doesn't perform syncronisation of some sort + It's not guaranteed that a near simultaneous call to pthread_atfork and fork + will result in the new atfork handlers being calls. + More rigorous internal syncronisation isn't needed as the user program isn't + guaranteeing their own state. + + as far as multiple calls to pthread_atfork, the worst case is simultaneous calls + will result in an indeterminate order for parent and child calls (what gets inserted + first isn't guaranteed.) + + There is one potential race... Does the result of InterlockedExchangePointer + get committed to the return location _before_ any context switches can occur? + If yes, we're safe, if no, we're not. */ void pthread::atforkprepare (void) { @@ -1528,10 +1524,9 @@ pthread::atforkchild (void) } } -/*Register a set of functions to run before and after fork. - *prepare calls are called in LI-FC order. - *parent and child calls are called in FI-FC order. - */ +/* Register a set of functions to run before and after fork. + prepare calls are called in LI-FC order. + parent and child calls are called in FI-FC order. */ int pthread::atfork (void (*prepare)(void), void (*parent)(void), void (*child)(void)) { @@ -1576,7 +1571,7 @@ pthread::atfork (void (*prepare)(void), void (*parent)(void), void (*child)(void callback **t = &MT_INTERFACE->pthread_parent; while (*t) t = &(*t)->next; - /*t = pointer to last next in the list */ + /* t = pointer to last next in the list */ parentcb->next = (callback *) InterlockedExchangePointer ((LONG *) t, (long int) parentcb); } if (childcb) @@ -1585,7 +1580,7 @@ pthread::atfork (void (*prepare)(void), void (*parent)(void), void (*child)(void callback **t = &MT_INTERFACE->pthread_child; while (*t) t = &(*t)->next; - /*t = pointer to last next in the list */ + /* t = pointer to last next in the list */ childcb->next = (callback *) InterlockedExchangePointer ((LONG *) t, (long int) childcb); } return 0; @@ -1626,10 +1621,9 @@ __pthread_attr_getschedparam (const pthread_attr_t *attr, return 0; } -/*From a pure code point of view, this should call a helper in sched.cc, - *to allow for someone adding scheduler policy changes to win32 in the future. - *However that's extremely unlikely, so short and sweet will do us - */ +/* From a pure code point of view, this should call a helper in sched.cc, + to allow for someone adding scheduler policy changes to win32 in the future. + However that's extremely unlikely, so short and sweet will do us */ int __pthread_attr_getschedpolicy (const pthread_attr_t *attr, int *policy) { @@ -1693,7 +1687,7 @@ __pthread_attr_setschedparam (pthread_attr_t *attr, return 0; } -/*See __pthread_attr_getschedpolicy for some notes */ +/* See __pthread_attr_getschedpolicy for some notes */ int __pthread_attr_setschedpolicy (pthread_attr_t *attr, int policy) { @@ -1712,8 +1706,8 @@ __pthread_attr_setscope (pthread_attr_t *attr, int contentionscope) if (contentionscope != PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM && contentionscope != PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS) return EINVAL; - /*In future, we may be able to support system scope by escalating the thread - *priority to exceed the priority class. For now we only support PROCESS scope. */ + /* In future, we may be able to support system scope by escalating the thread + priority to exceed the priority class. For now we only support PROCESS scope. */ if (contentionscope != PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS) return ENOTSUP; (*attr)->contentionscope = contentionscope; @@ -1757,7 +1751,7 @@ pthread::join (pthread_t *thread, void **return_val) if (return_val) *return_val = NULL; - /*FIXME: wait on the thread cancellation event as well - we are a cancellation point*/ + /* FIXME: wait on the thread cancellation event as well - we are a cancellation point*/ if (!isGoodObject (thread)) return ESRCH; @@ -1781,7 +1775,7 @@ pthread::join (pthread_t *thread, void **return_val) *return_val = (*thread)->return_ptr; // cleanup delete (*thread); - } /*End if */ + } /* End if */ pthread_testcancel (); @@ -1802,7 +1796,7 @@ pthread::detach (pthread_t *thread) } // check if thread is still alive - if (WAIT_TIMEOUT == WaitForSingleObject ((*thread)->win32_obj_id, 0) ) + if (WAIT_TIMEOUT == WaitForSingleObject ((*thread)->win32_obj_id, 0)) { // force cleanup on exit (*thread)->joiner = *thread; @@ -1848,16 +1842,16 @@ pthread::resume (pthread_t *thread) return 0; } -/*provided for source level compatability. - *See http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/pthread_getconcurrency.html - */ +/* provided for source level compatability. + See http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/pthread_getconcurrency.html +*/ int __pthread_getconcurrency (void) { return MT_INTERFACE->concurrency; } -/*keep this in sync with sched.cc */ +/* keep this in sync with sched.cc */ int __pthread_getschedparam (pthread_t thread, int *policy, struct sched_param *param) @@ -1865,19 +1859,18 @@ __pthread_getschedparam (pthread_t thread, int *policy, if (!pthread::isGoodObject (&thread)) return ESRCH; *policy = SCHED_FIFO; - /*we don't return the current effective priority, we return the current requested - *priority */ + /* we don't return the current effective priority, we return the current + requested priority */ *param = thread->attr.schedparam; return 0; } -/*Thread SpecificData */ +/* Thread SpecificData */ int __pthread_key_create (pthread_key_t *key, void (*destructor) (void *)) { - /*The opengroup docs don't define if we should check this or not, - *but creation is relatively rare.. - */ + /* The opengroup docs don't define if we should check this or not, + but creation is relatively rare. */ if (pthread_key::isGoodObject (key)) return EBUSY; @@ -1902,9 +1895,9 @@ __pthread_key_delete (pthread_key_t key) return 0; } -/*provided for source level compatability. - *See http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/pthread_getconcurrency.html - */ +/* provided for source level compatability. See +http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/pthread_getconcurrency.html +*/ int __pthread_setconcurrency (int new_level) { @@ -1914,7 +1907,7 @@ __pthread_setconcurrency (int new_level) return 0; } -/*keep syncronised with sched.cc */ +/* keep syncronised with sched.cc */ int __pthread_setschedparam (pthread_t thread, int policy, const struct sched_param *param) @@ -1952,7 +1945,7 @@ __pthread_getspecific (pthread_key_t key) } -/*Thread synchronisation */ +/* Thread synchronisation */ bool pthread_cond::isGoodObject (pthread_cond_t const *cond) { @@ -1985,7 +1978,7 @@ __pthread_cond_destroy (pthread_cond_t *cond) if (!pthread_cond::isGoodObject (cond)) return EINVAL; - /*reads are atomic */ + /* reads are atomic */ if ((*cond)->waiting) return EBUSY; @@ -2061,7 +2054,7 @@ __pthread_cond_dowait (pthread_cond_t *cond, pthread_mutex_t *mutex, if (!pthread_cond::isGoodObject (cond)) return EINVAL; - /*if the cond variable is blocked, then the above timer test maybe wrong. *shrug**/ + /* if the cond variable is blocked, then the above timer test maybe wrong. *shrug**/ if (pthread_mutex_lock (&(*cond)->cond_access)) system_printf ("Failed to lock condition variable access mutex, this %p", *cond); @@ -2079,13 +2072,11 @@ __pthread_cond_dowait (pthread_cond_t *cond, pthread_mutex_t *mutex, if (pthread_mutex_unlock (&(*cond)->cond_access)) system_printf ("Failed to unlock condition variable access mutex, this %p", *cond); /* At this point calls to Signal will progress evebn if we aren' yet waiting - * However, the loop there should allow us to get scheduled and call wait, - * and have them call PulseEvent again if we dont' respond. - */ + However, the loop there should allow us to get scheduled and call wait, + and have them call PulseEvent again if we dont' respond. */ rv = (*cond)->TimedWait (waitlength); - /* this may allow a race on the mutex acquisition and waits.. - * But doing this within the cond access mutex creates a different race - */ + /* this may allow a race on the mutex acquisition and waits. + But doing this within the cond access mutex creates a different race */ InterlockedDecrement (&((*cond)->waiting)); /* Tell Signal that we have been released */ InterlockedDecrement (&((*cond)->ExitingWait)); @@ -2153,7 +2144,7 @@ __pthread_condattr_setpshared (pthread_condattr_t *attr, int pshared) return EINVAL; if ((pshared < 0) || (pshared > 1)) return EINVAL; - /*shared cond vars not currently supported */ + /* shared cond vars not currently supported */ if (pshared != PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE) return EINVAL; (*attr)->shared = pshared; @@ -2170,11 +2161,11 @@ __pthread_condattr_destroy (pthread_condattr_t *condattr) return 0; } -/*Thread signal */ +/* Thread signal */ int __pthread_kill (pthread_t thread, int sig) { -// lock myself, for the use of thread2signal + // lock myself, for the use of thread2signal // two different kills might clash: FIXME if (!pthread::isGoodObject (&thread)) @@ -2215,7 +2206,7 @@ __pthread_equal (pthread_t *t1, pthread_t *t2) return (*t1 == *t2); } -/*Mutexes */ +/* Mutexes */ /* FIXME: there's a potential race with PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITALIZER: the mutex is not actually inited until the first use. @@ -2234,15 +2225,15 @@ pthread_mutex::init (pthread_mutex_t *mutex, DWORD waitResult = WaitForSingleObject (mutexInitializationLock, INFINITE); if (waitResult != WAIT_OBJECT_0) { - system_printf ("Recieved a unexpected wait result on mutexInitializationLock %d\n", waitResult); + system_printf ("Received a unexpected wait result on mutexInitializationLock %d\n", waitResult); return EINVAL; } /* FIXME: bugfix: we should check *mutex being a valid address */ if (isGoodObject (mutex)) { - if (! ReleaseMutex(mutexInitializationLock)) - system_printf ("Recieved a unexpected result releasing mutexInitializationLock %d\n", GetLastError()); + if (!ReleaseMutex (mutexInitializationLock)) + system_printf ("Received a unexpected result releasing mutexInitializationLock %E"); return EBUSY; } @@ -2251,12 +2242,12 @@ pthread_mutex::init (pthread_mutex_t *mutex, { delete (*mutex); *mutex = NULL; - if (! ReleaseMutex(mutexInitializationLock)) - system_printf ("Recieved a unexpected result releasing mutexInitializationLock %d\n", GetLastError()); + if (!ReleaseMutex (mutexInitializationLock)) + system_printf ("Received a unexpected result releasing mutexInitializationLock %E"); return EAGAIN; } - if (! ReleaseMutex(mutexInitializationLock)) - system_printf ("Recieved a unexpected result releasing mutexInitializationLock %d\n", GetLastError()); + if (!ReleaseMutex (mutexInitializationLock)) + system_printf ("Received a unexpected result releasing mutexInitializationLock %E"); return 0; } @@ -2269,14 +2260,13 @@ __pthread_mutex_getprioceiling (const pthread_mutex_t *mutex, pthread_mutex::init ((pthread_mutex_t *) mutex, NULL); if (!pthread_mutex::isGoodObject (themutex)) return EINVAL; - /*We don't define _POSIX_THREAD_PRIO_PROTECT because we do't currently support - *mutex priorities. - * - *We can support mutex priorities in the future though: - *Store a priority with each mutex. - *When the mutex is optained, set the thread priority as appropriate - *When the mutex is released, reset the thread priority. - */ + /* We don't define _POSIX_THREAD_PRIO_PROTECT because we do't currently support + mutex priorities. + + We can support mutex priorities in the future though: + Store a priority with each mutex. + When the mutex is optained, set the thread priority as appropriate + When the mutex is released, reset the thread priority. */ return ENOSYS; } @@ -2286,8 +2276,7 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex) pthread_mutex_t *themutex = mutex; /* This could be simplified via isGoodInitializerOrObject and isGoodInitializer, but in a performance critical call like this.... - no. - */ + no. */ switch (verifyable_object_isvalid (themutex, PTHREAD_MUTEX_MAGIC, PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER)) { case INVALID_OBJECT: @@ -2297,12 +2286,11 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock (pthread_mutex_t *mutex) if (pthread_mutex::isGoodInitializer (mutex)) { int rv = pthread_mutex::init (mutex, NULL); - if (rv) + if (rv && rv != EBUSY) return rv; } /* No else needed. If it's been initialized while we waited, - * we can just attempt to lock it - */ + we can just attempt to lock it */ break; case VALID_OBJECT: break; @@ -2343,7 +2331,7 @@ __pthread_mutex_destroy (pthread_mutex_t *mutex) if (!pthread_mutex::isGoodObject (mutex)) return EINVAL; - /*reading a word is atomic */ + /* reading a word is atomic */ if ((*mutex)->condwaits) return EBUSY; @@ -2364,8 +2352,8 @@ __pthread_mutex_setprioceiling (pthread_mutex_t *mutex, int prioceiling, return ENOSYS; } -/*Win32 doesn't support mutex priorities - see __pthread_mutex_getprioceiling - *for more detail */ +/* Win32 doesn't support mutex priorities - see __pthread_mutex_getprioceiling + for more detail */ int __pthread_mutexattr_getprotocol (const pthread_mutexattr_t *attr, int *protocol) @@ -2385,10 +2373,10 @@ __pthread_mutexattr_getpshared (const pthread_mutexattr_t *attr, return 0; } -/*Win32 mutex's are equivalent to posix RECURSIVE mutexs. - *We need to put glue in place to support other types of mutex's. We map - *PTHREAD_MUTEX_DEFAULT to PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE and return EINVAL for other types. - */ +/* Win32 mutex's are equivalent to posix RECURSIVE mutexs. + We need to put glue in place to support other types of mutex's. We map + PTHREAD_MUTEX_DEFAULT to PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE and return EINVAL for + other types. */ int __pthread_mutexattr_gettype (const pthread_mutexattr_t *attr, int *type) { @@ -2398,11 +2386,10 @@ __pthread_mutexattr_gettype (const pthread_mutexattr_t *attr, int *type) return 0; } -/*Currently pthread_mutex_init ignores the attr variable, this is because - *none of the variables have any impact on it's behaviour. - * - *FIXME: write and test process shared mutex's. - */ +/* Currently pthread_mutex_init ignores the attr variable, this is because + none of the variables have any impact on it's behaviour. + + FIXME: write and test process shared mutex's. */ int __pthread_mutexattr_init (pthread_mutexattr_t *attr) { @@ -2430,7 +2417,7 @@ __pthread_mutexattr_destroy (pthread_mutexattr_t *attr) } -/*Win32 doesn't support mutex priorities */ +/* Win32 doesn't support mutex priorities */ int __pthread_mutexattr_setprotocol (pthread_mutexattr_t *attr, int protocol) { @@ -2439,7 +2426,7 @@ __pthread_mutexattr_setprotocol (pthread_mutexattr_t *attr, int protocol) return ENOSYS; } -/*Win32 doesn't support mutex priorities */ +/* Win32 doesn't support mutex priorities */ int __pthread_mutexattr_setprioceiling (pthread_mutexattr_t *attr, int prioceiling) @@ -2463,7 +2450,7 @@ __pthread_mutexattr_setpshared (pthread_mutexattr_t *attr, int pshared) { if (!pthread_mutexattr::isGoodObject (attr)) return EINVAL; - /*we don't use pshared for anything as yet. We need to test PROCESS_SHARED + /* we don't use pshared for anything as yet. We need to test PROCESS_SHARED *functionality */ if (pshared != PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE) @@ -2472,7 +2459,7 @@ __pthread_mutexattr_setpshared (pthread_mutexattr_t *attr, int pshared) return 0; } -/*see __pthread_mutex_gettype */ +/* see __pthread_mutex_gettype */ int __pthread_mutexattr_settype (pthread_mutexattr_t *attr, int type) { @@ -2484,7 +2471,7 @@ __pthread_mutexattr_settype (pthread_mutexattr_t *attr, int type) return 0; } -/*Semaphores */ +/* Semaphores */ /* static members */ bool @@ -2498,7 +2485,7 @@ semaphore::isGoodObject (sem_t const * sem) int semaphore::init (sem_t *sem, int pshared, unsigned int value) { - /*opengroup calls this undefined */ + /* opengroup calls this undefined */ if (isGoodObject (sem)) return EBUSY; @@ -2522,7 +2509,7 @@ semaphore::destroy (sem_t *sem) if (!isGoodObject (sem)) return EINVAL; - /*FIXME - new feature - test for busy against threads... */ + /* FIXME - new feature - test for busy against threads... */ delete (*sem); *sem = NULL; -- 2.43.5