Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:58:30 -0400 From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Erich Dollansky <freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mutex held in a thread which is cancelled stays busy Message-ID: <1FC05CEB-982F-484F-9E41-5A74FF564494@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20190806165429.14bc4052.freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> References: <20190806165429.14bc4052.freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Aug 6, 2019, at 4:54 AM, Erich Dollansky <freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.co= m> wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > for testing purpose, I did the following. >=20 > Start a thread, initialise a mutex in a global variable, lock the mutex > and wait in that thread. >=20 > Wait in the main program until above's thread waits and cancel it. >=20 > Clean up behind the cancelled thread but leave intentional the mutex > locked. >=20 > I would have expected now to get an error like 'EOWNERDEAD' doing > operations with that mutex. But I get 'EBUSY' as the error. Are you initializing the mutex as a robust mutex, via pthread_mutexattr_setr= obust()? Are you using _lock() or _trylock()? For _trylock(), you only get EOWNERDEAD for robust mutexes. It seems that y= ou should get EOWNERDEAD for _lock() in this case, so if that's what you're d= oing, it sounds like it might be a bug. -- DE=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1FC05CEB-982F-484F-9E41-5A74FF564494>