Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: lists@tar.com, tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, info@highwind.com Subject: Re: Another Serious libc_r problem Message-ID: <199810201545.LAA21709@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dmitrij Tejblum <tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru> wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Oct 98 08:01:12 -0500, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > > > >I will try to look at this later, if I have time. However, there are > > >others who know a lot more about this than I do who could probably > > >do a better fix. > > > > You could try the following patch. However, someone else should look at > > it too before its committed. > > Heh. I was just about post a very similar patch when received your posting. > I think, howewer, that your patch is slightly wrong, so I will post mine > anyway. As far as I understand, it is better to do pthread_mutex_unlock and > _thread_queue_enc under same _SPINLOCK. (I'm afraid, there is still some > races in this code). I don't think you want to wrap anything other than the condtion queue and dequeue with the condition spin locks; they should be used just to protect changing the condition variable. As long as you enqueue the condition variable before you unlock the mutex, there should be no race conditions. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199810201545.LAA21709>