Benjamin Lee wrote: > > Yup, it works! Swapping the order of unlock_in() and unlock_out() > statements at the end of conn_register() fixes the mutex problem.
I have commited this to cvs now. Uoti and the other: > > > at the end of conn_register, or (a cleaner way) by adding a > > > lock_out/unlock_out pair at the start of conn_destroy. what is considered here to be the "cleaner way"? Or do we still some problem in solving this "only" by swapping unlock_in() and unlock_out() ? Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wapme Systems AG Münsterstr. 248 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- wapme.net - wherever you are
