So is the upshot that the mutex param to the constructor should default to nullptr?
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Derek Dagit <der...@oath.com.invalid> wrote: > A continuation's Mutex is also used for certain API functions, like > TSHostLookup: > > https://docs.trafficserver.apache.org/en/latest/developer-guide/api/functions/TSHostLookup.en.html > > But you do not always need them. > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Alan Carroll < > solidwallofc...@oath.com.invalid> wrote: > >> Yes. I have seen reference count numbers in the high teens for some >> mutexes. >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Walt Karas <wka...@oath.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> > So it's possible that two different continuations may be sharing a single >> > mutex? >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Alan Carroll >> > <solidwallofc...@oath.com.invalid> wrote: >> > > Walt - I think Derek is commenting stylistically, that if no Mutex is >> the >> > > default for the C API, then it should be the default for the C++ as >> well. >> > > >> > > What about a user conversion to TSCont in addition to an explicit >> method? >> > > If you could, writing this up as a Sphinx API doc would be cool. >> > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Alan Carroll < >> solidwallofc...@oath.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Indirectly. What's stored in the Continuation is a shared pointer to >> the >> > >> Mutex. That shared pointer is destructed by TSContDestroy which may in >> > turn >> > >> destruct the Mutex (or not, if there are still references to it). >> > >> >> > >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Walt Karas <wka...@oath.com.invalid >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> I'm pretty sure TSContDestroy() also destroys any mutex for the >> > >>> continuation. (Per our other discussion, I got exasperated trying to >> > >>> make sure of this looking through the code with just vi.) >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> > > > > -- > Derek
