Re: mutexes, locks and so on...

[David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost>]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 06:35:55PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> this solution would break if people actually wrote code like
> lock(a)
> lock(b)
> release(a)
> release(b)

That sequence is important, lock 'a' might control the global table, and
lock 'b' a specific entry. Otherwise you have to exchange lock 'b' for
a reference count in order to release 'a'.

(this could apply to the pid lookup table)

        David

-- 
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost