>> The mutex was (and is still only) locked within case branches, isn't it? >> > You are correct, this does however reflect the issue with the resulting > lack of balance here.
I suggest to reconsider affected software aspects a bit more. > I saw the mutex was getting unlocked outside the local scope and so assumed > that it was also take outside the local scope. Assumptions and corresponding expectations might need further clarifications. > That isn't true, so we have hurt readability. Does your conclusion need any adjustment? > I read it quickly and got the wrong idea which generally implies it is not > as clear as we would like. > > Hence this change isn't going anywhere I'm afraid. I imagine that more time will be needed then to get used to additional adjustments of implementation details in these functions. Regards, Markus
