From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jan  8 07:43:55 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01FF16A4CE
	for <freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  8 Jan 2004 07:43:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB6843D2D
	for <freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  8 Jan 2004 07:43:54 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i08Fhriw010918;
	Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:43:53 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:43:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Earl Chew <earl_chew@agilent.com>
In-Reply-To: <3FFA0958.3020307@agilent.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10401081042120.10354-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: misc/24641: pthread_rwlock_rdlock can deadlock
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 15:43:55 -0000

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Earl Chew wrote:

> However, it appears counter-intuitive to me that if a thread has already
> acquired a rdlock(), and the rdlock() is recursive, that a subsequent
> call should fail.
> 
> Failure should indicate that the lock could not be acquired. But the
> thread _already_ has the lock! So it's hard to explain why the
> subsequent call should fail (given the requirement that the
> rdlock be recursive).

I committed a fix for this in both libc_r and libkse.