Ond=C5=99ej Kuzn=C3=ADk wrote:

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 01:14:08PM +0000, hyc@symas.com wrote:

...

okuznik@symas.com wrote:

...

Integrating with libevent, I would find it useful if libldap_r provid=

ed a

...

...

recursive mutex as well, since this is what libevent uses.

You mean libldap_r/rmutex.c ?

Hmm, I see that now, but is quite heavy weight if this already exists i=

n

many implementations natively, often at no cost at all. What if I renamed the current ldap_pvt_*_rmutex_* functions to ldap_int_* and deferred to them in the two implementations that can't do recursive mutexes only?

This would be an ABI break for rmutex users, other than that, there seems to be no expectation that two versions of libldap_r compiled against a different thread implementation should be ABI compatible already.

IMO using recursive mutexes means your code is broken. We introduced thes= e for=20 accesslog.c but in fact we could avoid them at zero cost. Also I don't se= e the=20 relevance of libevent to this discussion. We use our own event mechanism = and=20 it is more efficient than libevent.

--=20 -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/