On 08/20/10 05:01 PM, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
One thing I'd like to ask is: you introduce a few additional mutexes: ldapoptions -> ldo_mutex ldapcommon -> ldc_msgid_mutex, ldc_abandon_mutex in addition of the already existing ldap -> ld_conn_mutex, ld_req_mutex, ld_res_mutex that move to ldap_common. My concern is: can you guarantee that the occurrences of locking/unlocking those additional mutexes, combined to the existing ones, do not result in deadlocks? I mean: did you explicitly check all possible logical paths or so, or take measures to avoid this possibility?
Yes, I believe that I have, but I agree that the new test060-mt-hot test case does not sufficiently test these mutexes. I will make some additional enhancements to the new test case to provide better code coverage results, and submit them as part of the next round of code review. Doug.
