This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Roland McGrath <roland@frob.com> writes: > There seem to be some locks declared with plain __libc_lock_define et al > but that actually need to be recursive locks for things to work right. > For example, _dl_load_lock. In that case, there is even a comment saying > that it must be a recursive lock, but it doesn't use the right macros. > What's up with that? Whatever is currently used seems to work. If a comment is wrong it can be fixed, there is no need to make such a fuzz about it. If you think a recursive lock is needed indeed this should be discussed (starting with a description why you think this is the case). You must not forget that the whole thing seems to be run pretty fine. I haven't seen reports about mysterious lock-ups which would be the first thing I'd expect if, as you say, the use of __libc_lock is completely wrong throughout the tree. -- ---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |