On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
I've written applications like this. One thread will create a mutex, stash
that away in a global, or somesuch, and then lock the thing *twice*. When
another thread wants the first one to resume, it unlocks the mutex.
Oh, and FWIW, I'm proposing we get rid of nested (aka recursive) mutexes,
which is when the same thread can lock a mutex over and over w/o
deadlocking. In what we call non-nested mutexes, you get the default
posix behavior, which is the scenario you described above (whenever
a thread tries to lock an already-acquired mutex, it will block).
-aaron
