[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#8638) Recursive mutex in libldap_r
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>> IMO using recursive mutexes means your code is broken. We introduced these for
>>> accesslog.c but in fact we could avoid them at zero cost. Also I don't see the
>>> relevance of libevent to this discussion. We use our own event mechanism and
>>> it is more efficient than libevent.
>> libevent is a dependency for the load balancer that I intend to propose
>> for integration into the project after all the relevant dependencies
>> have come in.
>> There is a new version of this patch that provides an implementation on
>> each platform or defers to the existing one (as per each platform's
>> documentation). Untested except on POSIX and most of them seem pretty
>> arcane anyway.
> It looks like glibc still doesn't define PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE by default,
> it requires compiling with either -D_GNU_SOURCE or -D_XOPEN_SOURCE. The
> feature itself appears to be part of UNIX98. It's likely that all pthread
> implementations available today support it, but it still seems a bit iffy.
OK, I see that current glibc defaults to _POSIX_C_SOURCE=200809 which includes
__XOPEN_2K8. All of this came later than our rmutex.c which was written in
2006, so that explains where the need arose from. We should be safe pushing
this in, go ahead.
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/