From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep 23 21:10:04 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74048106564A
	for <freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:10:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F558FC15
	for <freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:10:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o8NLA4Oh039570
	for <freebsd-threads@freefall.freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:10:04 GMT
	(envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o8NLA4io039569;
	Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:10:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:10:04 GMT
Message-Id: <201009232110.o8NLA4io039569@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org
From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: threads/150889: PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER +
 pthread_mutex_destroy() == EINVAL
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>
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, 23 Sep 2010 21:10:04 -0000

The following reply was made to PR threads/150889; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>
To: Christopher Faylor <cgf@netapp.com>
Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org, freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: threads/150889: PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER +
 pthread_mutex_destroy() == EINVAL
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:07:46 +0200

 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