> Or maybe no default to avoid confusion? Yeah this sounds fine to me too.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Walt Karas <wka...@oath.com.invalid> wrote: > Or maybe no default to avoid confusion? > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Derek Dagit <der...@oath.com.invalid> > wrote: > > I think that would be better, because it's consistent with the current > API. > > > > Sorry if I wasn't clear on that before. > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Walt Karas <wka...@oath.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Derek > -- Derek
