__libc_lock_lock_recursive et al

[Ulrich Drepper]

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   `------------------------