"Ion Gaztañaga" <igaztanaga@gmail.com> wrote in message news:48C1AACA.5090305@gmail.com...
Faisal Vali wrote:
Well, I was just wondering what was the reason for not including a recursive_named_upgradeable_mutex?
I just didn't see any use case for that. Is there any C++ synchronization library that offers this kind of mutex? Why do you need it?
I had created wrapper functions for my containers that were synchronized using a named upgradeable mutex and lock guards, and ended up having to call one function from the other (which causes deadlock if an exclusive lock is got) - i thought a recursive lock would have allowed this (not sure the pros and cons of this approach). But since there is no such mutex, i settled on a couple of solutions: one involved creating a scoped_lock appropriately if a bool param indicates a lock-recusrive call or not, the other uses templatized versions that use an mpl::if_c to create noop locks if the nontype bool param indicates to do so. Please keep in mind that I am still learning about synchronization issues (and am light on the theory, so i might have missed a common pattern for solving this type of problem) thanks, -fas