Re: xlock_t: owner and owned

[Vladimir T. <vtz...@gm...>]

On 6/26/09, Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> wrote:
> Vladimir Tzankov wrote:
>> If thread owns
>> a lock and unlocks it and after this locks it again - the second time
>> xlock_lock_helper() will not really acquire the mutex since the _owner
>> will be still the same (all this if _owner is not invalidated and
>> there is no other thread that got the lock between meanwhile. I've
>> experience exactly this with the tests that you've added for hash
>> table and packages).
>
> that's OK.
> my point is that before accessing the owner field, we must assure that the
> owned field is set. this is safe and clean.

ok, got it. Will use it and commit.

>
> BTW, why did you decide to name the fields with a leading "_"?
> it would have been much nicer if the names followed the usual unix
> convention
> (cf. stat), e.g., xl_owner &c (and the names should be longer and more
> mnemonic
> and greppable).

Will change them as well (xlock_t started as experiment how to
interrupt while waiting on mutex and thus shorter names remained).