Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- From: "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:40:27 -0700
Well, you should not care. As long as you acquired the mutex (first or
second time), it's yours. If it's not yours, you're just waiting for that.
"Frank Cusack" <fcusack@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:m2zm2e3a6v.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Neither does a recursive mutex since a thread other than the one that
acquired the first lock cannot acquire a lock either.
-frank
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:47:10 -0400 Joseph M. Newcomer
<newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, trylock and its equivalents only say that the object is locked.
It does not guarantee that you can lock an object and examine it, so
it won't do the job of walking a circular structure when there are
potentially concurrent walkers.
joe
.
- 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
- From: Frank Cusack
- Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- From: Frank Cusack
- Re: WaitForSingleObject() will not deadlock
- Prev by Date: Re: MFC training, 9th - 11th July 2007, London, UK
- 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
|