I've been thinking about the whole static vs. dynamic lock situation,
and I must say I have some difficulty seeing a good way out of it.
The two variants serve similar purposes, but have one crucial
difference, and it's that the static ones are pre-initialised.
If everything was converted to use dynamic locks, I wonder where those
locks would be created and initialised? Shall we have yet another
startup function, say OpenSSL_init(), that does this (BTW, we really
should have that anyway, so we have something that does all those
startup things that people usually need to do, but that's another
story)?
I was playing with the thought of having CRYPTO_lock() create new
locks on the fly if needed, but that won't work because a) there is no
way to know of the given lock index would be an error or a request for
a new lock, and b) to protect the creation against concurency, we'd
need another lock => catch 22!
This needs a lot more thought.
In any case, Bertie, I will apply your patch. I do it reluctantly,
but I've realised that the situation demands it.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
