On 02/08/2013 05:43 AM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 09:31:22AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 02/07/2013 05:28 AM, Jamie Iles wrote:
>>>> +int pthread_rwlock_init(pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock,
>>>>> + const pthread_rwlockattr_t *attr)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (ll_pthread_rwlock_init == NULL)
>>>>> + init_preload();
>>> Why is this one special, doesn't init_preload being a constructor make
>>> this redundant?
>>
>> I was testing it on different things, and stumbled on an interesting case:
>> when pthread_mutex was taken from the constructor of a different module.
>>
>> In that case, the other constructor would try to init the mutex and take
>> a lock, but we would segfault because we haven't resolved the pthread
>> symbols yet ourselves (since our constructor was yet to be called).
>
> Okay, that makes sense, but shouldn't we do this for all of the lock
> operations? pthread locks can be statically initialized and they are
> initializaed lazily on the first access so I think that this could
> happen on any of the lock operations.
hmm... I've had it only in init() because I thought it doesn't make sense
to actually lock/unlock in constructor code, but yeah - better safe than
sorry.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
