*/ , was_locked_(false) { #ifndef BOOST_SYNC_REVERSE_LOCK_DONT_CHECK_OWNERSHIP /*< Define BOOST_SYNC_REVERSE_LOCK_DONT_CHECK_OWNERSHIP if you don't want to check locker ownership >*/ if (tmp_locker_.mutex()==0) { locker_=tmp_locker_.move(); /*< Rollback for coherency purposes */ throw lock_error(); } #endif if (tmp_locker_) { /*< ensures it is unlocked >*/ tmp_locker_.unlock(); was_locked_=true; } } ~reverse_lock() { if (was_locked) { tmp_locker_.lock(); } locker_=tmp_locker_.move(); /*< Move ownership to nesting locker >*/ }
Hi, Consider the following situations: { unique_lock<mutex> lock(smtx); // ... some writing operations { // non locked block reverse_lock< unique_lock<mutex> > rlock(lock); // ... some code not needing the mutex to be locked } // locked again // ... } or { shared_lock<mutex> lock(smtx); // ... some reading operations { // non locked block reverse_lock< shared_lock<mutex> > rlock(lock); // ... some code not needing the mutex to be locked } // locked again // ... } Do you think this usage is souhaitable or is this source of errors? The class reverse_lock can be defined as follows: template <typename Locker> class reverse_lock { BOOST_CONCEPT_ASSERT((MovableLockConcept<Locker>)); public: reverse_lock(Locker& locker) : locker_(locker) /*< Store reference to locker >*/ , tmp_locker_(locker.move()) /*< Move ownership to temporaty locker private: Locker& locker_; Locker tmp_locker_; bool was_locked_; reverse_lock(); }; Comments? _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escriba