Ond=C5=99ej Kuzn=C3=ADk wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 01:14:08PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> Integrating with libevent, I would find it useful if libldap_r provid= ed a >>> recursive mutex as well, since this is what libevent uses. >> >> You mean libldap_r/rmutex.c ? > > Hmm, I see that now, but is quite heavy weight if this already exists i= n > many implementations natively, often at no cost at all. What if I > renamed the current ldap_pvt_*_rmutex_* functions to ldap_int_* and > deferred to them in the two implementations that can't do recursive > mutexes only? > > This would be an ABI break for rmutex users, other than that, there > seems to be no expectation that two versions of libldap_r compiled > against a different thread implementation should be ABI compatible > already.
IMO using recursive mutexes means your code is broken. We introduced thes= e for=20 accesslog.c but in fact we could avoid them at zero cost. Also I don't se= e the=20 relevance of libevent to this discussion. We use our own event mechanism = and=20 it is more efficient than libevent. --=20 -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
