On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 03:29:55PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: A> ... why's the code returning locked mutexes to UMA? A> A> Why not fix the places that are doing this and doing a lock assertion A> in the destructor? What's this buy us? A> A> I'm very wary of design patterns like this that do conditional A> unlocking in free/destructor routines; it allows for the caller to not A> necessarily get all the lock/unlock stuff to line up in the main code A> and it can make debugging more of a pain.
I get your point, and even share it. I discussed that with melifaro@, he prefers destructors being smart. Note that mutex(9) by design allows to destroy a locked mutex. And route(4) relied on this semantics. Now I converted route(4) to lazy mutex deallocation. Of course, if mutex(9) didn't allow such trick, I wouldn't implement the code I did. But since code of route(4) was not considered broken before, I decided to keep status quo. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
