[Edit: (copied from a comment) As it turns out, the problem was elsewhere, but thank you all for your input.]
Found in torvalds/linux-2.6.git -> kernel/mutex.c line 171 I have tried to find it on Google and such to no avail.
Ok.. here is some background on the issue. I have some \'critical\' code that i\'m trying to protect with a mutex. It goes something like this
I\'m working an application of which only one instance must exist at any given time. There are several possibilities to accomplish this:
When dealing with threads (specificallyin C++) using mutex locks and sem开发者_如何学编程aphores is there a simple rule of thumb to avoid Dead Locks and have nice clean Synchronization? A good simple
I\'ve been successfully creating a .net mutex like this: SingleIns = new Mutex(true, AppName); for a while.It works in XP, Vista, but apparently not in Windows7.So I need to make an interop call to a
I have some objective-c code that uses an NSLock to implement a sort of transaction.The object is locked on a \"begin transaction\", several other calls are made with the lock in place, and then it\'s
The Windows API provides critical sections in which a waiting thread will spin a limited amount of times before context switching, but only on a multiprocessor system.These are implemented using Initi
I know, I know, the title of my message may seem provocative, since boost::mutex purposefuly do not expose lock / unlock (in order to avoid dead locks).
I have a nice little threading problem with a library I use to generate and serve dynamic graphs and charts in Zope. See this question for a description of my original problem.
加载中,请稍侯......