Re: Replace MUTEX_INITIALIZER with _LIBC_LOCK_INITIALIZER in generic code

[Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>]

On 08/20/2016 07:38 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> > Because it was a special case for malloc and appears to be a Mach
> > identifier, not a glibc identifier.
>
> Then let's call it another way.  But seeing this kind of code:
>
> static mutex_t list_lock = _LIBC_LOCK_INITIALIZER;
>
> looks really odd to the reader: why would I be using
> _LIBC_LOCK_INITIALIZER to initialize a mutex_t?  I shouldn't have to
> have a look at the mutex_t definition to know why it happens to be
> right.

I have just posted the remaining two conversion patches, split into an 
automated and a manual part.

Thanks,
Florian