On 20 March 2015 at 11:46, Jose Fonseca <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19/03/15 22:26, Emil Velikov wrote: >> >> C11 does not specify a static initializer, based on the idea that the >> a mutex will be platform and/or implementation dependent. As such the >> alternative solution is to initialize the mutex with mtx_init(). >> This will allow us to remove the transition hack, and in due time move >> to the system's C11 threads implementation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> >> --- >> src/waffle/core/wcore_display.c | 6 +++--- >> src/waffle/core/wcore_display.h | 3 ++- >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/waffle/core/wcore_display.c >> b/src/waffle/core/wcore_display.c >> index 2feeeba..49aeae6 100644 >> --- a/src/waffle/core/wcore_display.c >> +++ b/src/waffle/core/wcore_display.c >> @@ -34,14 +34,14 @@ wcore_display_init(struct wcore_display *self, >> struct wcore_platform *platform) >> { >> static size_t id_counter = 0; >> - static mtx_t mutex = _MTX_INITIALIZER_NP; > > > IIUC, this mutex protecting the static id_counter above, not the > wcore_display object, or anything, so moving mtx to display seems incorrect. > > The ideal solution here would be to use C11 atomics, but that's a bunch of > extra portibility code to maintain... The portable way of fixing this with > C11 threads is using once_flag. > Agreed, using C11 atomics was something that came to mind. Although I'd rather avoid adding another more compat layer.
I see that keeping the mutex within struct wcore_display was a bad idea. And it's the one lead me to drop the call_once in the first place. Upon closer look it seems that wcore_error_unittest.c:test_wcore_error_thread_local() will need a similar treatment. As always you're a star Jose. Thanks. Emil _______________________________________________ waffle mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/waffle
