Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- From: Frank Cusack <fcusack@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:47:50 -0700
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:37:50 -0400 Joseph M. Newcomer <newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was not aware that anyone would design a non-recursive mutex,
since this has been an integral part of lock design for at least 20
years, if not longer.
I haven't known our good friend the mutex for so long, but I would
hazard a guess that posix mutexes have ALWAYS had recursion as
an option. Because posix has a non-recursive mutex (by default)
doesn't mean it hasn't also always had a recursive mutex.
I was using recursive-acquisition locks in the late 1980s and they
were a well-known technology at the time I was using them. A
non-recursive mutex is not usable for doing things like traversing
circular lists trying to detect circularity, for example.
Sure it is, use trylock() instead of lock().
-frank
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- References:
- Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- From: Frank Cusack
- Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- From: Alexander Grigoriev
- Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- Prev by Date: Re: encrypt data in registry
- Next by Date: Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- Previous by thread: Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- Next by thread: Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|