PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST for tdb?

[Volker Lendecke]

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 03:17:48PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > So a strict requirement is to run with completely different
> > glibc implementations on a single host against the same tdb
> > file? True, this will kill it. Probably shared robust
> > mutexes are just a broken concept then. Sorry for the noise.
> 
> I don't think we need that much, but obviously persistence over reboots
> is important.  We might be able to store the size somewhere and say
> "oops, if you don't fit, fall back to fcntl locks".
> 
> I take advantage of the range-like properties of fcntl locks at the
> moment, but we could use some different scheme.

My idea would be that the first caller locks the db with
fcntl, then allocates a normal range within the tdb. If that
does not fit, it would just re-allocate.

Volker

-- 
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen