> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:06:33 +0900 > From: Ryota Ozaki <ozak...@netbsd.org> > > Is there any reason that rw_lock_held checks if it's held > by *someone*, not by curlwp? It's confusable and most (or all?) > users of the API seem to expect the latter (held by curlwp).
Wild guesses: (a) because it seemed fast to just test (owner & RW_THREAD) != 0, or (b) because Solaris did it. > So I think we should do either: > (1) fix rw_lock_held, or > - probably it would be rw_read_held() || rw_write_held() > (2) fix users of rw_lock_held. > - it also would replace rw_lock_held with > rw_read_held() || rw_write_held() > > I prefer (1) because I think there is no user of the current > behavior that is difficult to use for users (it may be useful > as an internal utility function though). I like (1) too, but check for Solaris compatibility? It is hard to imagine that there are correct uses of the current semantics that are not also correct uses of (1).
