On 02/12/2018 01:10 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:52:49 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
Sometimes we need the lock in virObjectLockable to be recursive. Because of the nature of pthreads we don't need a special class for that - the pthread_* APIs don't distinguish between normal and recursive locks.
Based-on-work-of: John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> --- src/libvirt_private.syms | 1 + src/util/virobject.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++--- src/util/virobject.h | 4 ++++ 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/libvirt_private.syms b/src/libvirt_private.syms index 3b14d7d15..fcf378105 100644 --- a/src/libvirt_private.syms +++ b/src/libvirt_private.syms @@ -2417,6 +2417,7 @@ virObjectListFreeCount; virObjectLock; virObjectLockableNew; virObjectNew; +virObjectRecursiveLockableNew;
I think this was NACK'd last time since we did not want to promote usage of recursive locks in the code. If we provide an object that provides recursive locking we de-facto promote this usage.
As Pavel stated in his review. Ideally the NWfilter code will be converted to a less convoluted locking not requiring recursive locks prior to this so that we don't have to add recursive locking at all.
I think that is far from happening. And I don't see any difference between virObjectRecursiveLockableNew() and virMutexInitRecursive() in terms of promoting something. Can you shed more light where do you see the difference? Michal