Repository navigation
Conversation
…k can grab the lock from previous dead owner. And it also fixed the issue boostorg#65.
|
Why was this PR closed? It seems to be still quite relevant! |
Member
|
Because robust mutex support was added in the commit: 7c88937 |
|
Thank you! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Added posix robust mutex implementation to allow subsequent mutex lock can grab the lock from previous dead owner. And it also fixed the issue #65.
Hi Reviewers,
We ran into some issues while we are using boost::interprocess::named_recursive_mutex with posix implementation when the previous owner of the mutex has been dead without releasing the mutex, so all others which are waiting for the same mutex will be blocked forever. And that's why I added this fix in posix mutex implementation to avoid this issue.