Boost logo

Boost :

From: Preston A. Elder (prez_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-14 08:20:32

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:27:44 +0000, Preston A. Elder wrote:

> This would be easily fixed by getting it to lock the internal lock on
> unlock (before the notify_all). Doing so would mean that the notify_all
> could not happen until B is in the wait.

And now I think about it, it should probably be a notify_one - there is
no point waking up all threads when only one will be able to acquire the
lock after an unlock. But then, I guess, since my class is templated,
there might actually be a concept of lock sharing (read locks for
example), so maybe I could be unlocking the writer, and then notifying a
bunch of readers. Hrrrm .. :)

This, of course, is assuming I had a 'view' on the shared_lock that would
EITHER call lock_shared or lock() depending on my 'view'. Hrm, another
new though, should my lock be able to specify which function to call
(try_lock / try_shared_lock / try_lock_upgrade) .. I love stream of
conciousness moments ;)

PreZ :)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at