DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38410>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38410 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-02-11 22:50 ------- Ok, here's how I read this from WaitForXxx documentation; WAIT_ABANDONED The specified object is a mutex object that was not released by the thread that owned the mutex object before the owning thread terminated. Ownership of the mutex object is granted to the calling thread, and the mutex is set to nonsignaled. So, threads A, B, and C exist. Thread A created the mutex, while B and C are waiting on the mutex. Thread A exits, thread B is notified WAIT_ABANDONED and literally now owns the non-signaled mutex. Thread C must therefore immediately acquire the mutex (as it is waiting and MS can't be granting ownership to mult threads, obviously), so thread B should loop and wait again. Sure sounds like a potential starvation situation if creating threads frequently terminate, but let's presume sane authors don't kick around mutexes that way :) I'll apply the patch after reviewing all the places it must go. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
