Re: __libc_lock_lock_recursive et al

[Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>]

Roland McGrath <roland@frob.com> writes:

> It certainly works fine for linuxthreads, and I didn't mean to suggest
> otherwise.

Seeing the patch I finally understand what you mean.  The POSIX way of
handling recursive mutexes is to have different initializers and
that's it.  Therefore we use the normal lock/unlock functions
throughout the code.  Yes, _recursive macros were there but they
didn't seem necessary.  It is of course perfectly well possible that
some recursive lock implementations use a different set of functions
from the normal mutex.  Apparently cthreads does this.  I never looked
at that implementation so I couldn't know.

Having said this the patch looks fine.  Go ahead, check it in if you
have successfully compiled a Linux version.  If not I'll look at it
tomorrow.

-- 
---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------