[Bug nptl/21119] Unify the pthread_mutex_t definitions

["hyc at symas dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21119

--- Comment #4 from Howard Chu <hyc at symas dot com> ---
(In reply to Torvald Riegel from comment #3)
> I don't that a exposing futexes would be the right approach.  It is too
> low-level an interface for many clients, I believe.  While currently,
> pthreads mutexes will accomplish a lot through use of futexes, this isn't
> necessarily going to remain that way to the same extent.
> 
> Howard, have you tried using semaphores more extensively?
> 
> Regarding 32b/64b compatibility: Maybe this can be considered for something
> like a semaphore; but even there this is not quite trivial.

We have support for semaphores but they're not the preferred solution. Mainly
because there are race conditions in creating them when multiple processes open
the DB at the same time. Also because they have an independent lifetime; with
pshared mutexes living in the mmap'd lockfile they simply go away if a user
decides to delete the files.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.