Re: [boost] [thread] is this reverse_lock class a source of errors?

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-11 05:58:00

"vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Consider the following situations:
>
>  {
>      unique_lock<mutex> lock(smtx);
>
>      // ... some writing operations
>
>      { // non locked block
>          reverse_lock< unique_lock<mutex> > rlock(lock);
>          // ... some code not needing the mutex to be locked
>      } // locked again
>
>      // ...
> }

> Do you think this usage is souhaitable or is this source of errors?

I've had to do it myself a few times. I think it's worthwhile adding it to the
library in order to ensure it is done as safely as possible.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams            | Just Software Solutions Ltd
Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL