Subj : Re: pthread_cond_signal() semantics
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Date : Sun Jan 09 2005 08:09 pm

Giancarlo Niccolai <searchforme@ingoogle.com> writes:

> (unless you are using FIFO mutexes which are often provided as
> extensions, but that many of us here disapprove).

Do "FIFO mutexes" mean that they guarantee that threads will be able
to lock them in the order of arrival? If so, why is it disapproved?
I guess you mean that it's bad to rely on such behavior, but it's
not bad to actually provide it? What guarantees do non-FIFO mutexes
provide about the order of locking - just lack of starvation?

-- 
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak@knm.org.pl
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/

.