On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Balbir Singh<balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > lock(A) > lock(B) > unlock(A) > unlock(B) > > Tomorrow if a unsuspecting programmer does this > > lock(A) > lock(B) > unlock(A) > > code block > > unlock(B) > > > What protects code block? lock B? Is that the intention? > An "unsuspecting programmer" shouldn't be adding code to multi-threaded routines without thoroughly understanding the locking. I guess there's no harm in this patch, but as Li says, it doesn't really change anything. Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
