On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 07:41:37PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > On Sunday 16 December 2007 13:05, Peter Baumann wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:18:53AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > > + > > > + progress_lock(); > > > + me->working = 0; > > > + progress_unlock(); > > > + pthread_cond_signal(&progress_cond); > > > > Shouldn't the pthread_cond_signal be inside the lock? > > e.g. swap progress_unlock() with pthread_cond_signal(&progress_cond) > > No, that's not necessary. Both ways are correct, but if it's outside the lock > there is less contention on the mutex (because the waiting thread must > acquire the mutex lock before it can return from pthread_cond_wait). > At least I was told otherwise and [1] backs my knowledge up. Are you really sure? -Peter http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/806-5257/6je9h032r?a=view#sync-53686 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
