Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:07:46 +0200 From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> To: Christopher Faylor <cgf@netapp.com> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: threads/150889: PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER + pthread_mutex_destroy() == EINVAL Message-ID: <20100923210746.GA44173@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <1285270911.11313.30.camel@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> References: <201009231733.o8NHXuao082524@www.freebsd.org> <201009231414.50271.jhb@freebsd.org> <1285270911.11313.30.camel@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 03:41:51PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I don't see how this represents buggy code. It should be possible to > destroy a mutex which is allocated statically. Currently, if a mutex is > assigned to PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER and then used once, it can be > successfully destroyed. It is only receive an EINVAL when there has > been no intervening call to any mutex function. I don't think that a > PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER using program should have to check for that. One may want to destroy a mutex to help memory leak checkers and detect bugs, and then this is indeed a problem. > However, regardless, this is still a bug in pthread_mutex_destroy right? It is inconsistent at best. It seems best to make the proposed change. This will allow pthread_mutex_destroy() on a destroyed mutex to succeed (which used to return EINVAL), but pthread_mutex_lock() already succeeded as well (initializing the mutex in the process). If/when pthread_mutex_t is made a struct, this can be revisited, and most likely the destroyed and PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER states will be different (PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER will likely be a normal state that does not need special initialization to use). -- Jilles Tjoelker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100923210746.GA44173>