On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 09:47:12PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote: > Other than performance, why should the caller care? The lock can't > block. Unbeknownst to the caller we or libc get locks on other > callers. > > Still curious,
Hmm. Let me try and restate it. It's a feeling that doing this would be more than simply "creating" a lock - we're also "testing" it. I absolutely see why we need it, but it makes me uneasy to do this automatically in all cases. I wish that this were an option that the caller could opt-in. Consider the case of doing system-call tracing (via truss or strace or ktrace). You'll get possibly confused by having the extraneous lock/unlock. If you look at the APR calls on the surface, you wouldn't know that there is an extra lock/unlock done on this new lock at creation-time. Other than the option/flag alternative, I'm not seeing another way to do this. And, I believe that we should catch this at creation time, so... -- justin
