Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 11:15:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: Koop Mast <kwm@rainbow-runner.nl>, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mutexes and error checking Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307211115010.6265@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <51EB5EC4.6050802@marcuscom.com> References: <51E71D4F.5030502@marcuscom.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307181059460.22570@sea.ntplx.net> <51E8061B.60906@marcuscom.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307181118100.22570@sea.ntplx.net> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307182144030.23634@sea.ntplx.net> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1307190152440.25756@sea.ntplx.net> <51EB5EC4.6050802@marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On 7/19/13 1:55 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> >> Ugh! I misread the problem when I tried to recreate it and >> test it on Solaris, so forget that last email. >> >> It seems Solaris behaves like Linux with PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL >> and _unlocking_ mutexes owned by other threads (dead or not). >> Solaris only returns EPERM for PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK >> mutexes. > > Given that, should we do the same? I'm testing a patch. Give me a couple of days to get some more cycles. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1307211115010.6265>