In my code I use ACE_Mutex
from the ACE library on a system (QNX) that has pthreads. Now I'm experiencing the problem that it seems like the destructor of ACE_Mutex
doesn't call pthread_mutex_destroy
. This gives trouble when a subsequent mutex at the same memory location is initialized, because pthread_mutex_init
returns errno=16
(EBUSY
).
Looking at the code of ACE_Mutex::remove
(in Mutex.inl), I see a strange set of precompiler directives:
ACE_INLINE int
ACE_Mutex::remove (void)
{
// ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Mutex::remove");
int result = 0;
#if defined (ACE_HAS_PTHREADS) || defined (ACE_HAS_STHREADS)
// In the case of a interprocess mutex, the owner is the first
// process that created the shared memory object. In this case, the
// lockname_ pointer will be non-zero (points to allocated memory
// for the name). Owner or not, the memory needs to be unmapped
// from the process. If we are the owner, the file used for
// shm_open needs to be deleted as well.
if (this->process_lock_)
{
if (this->removed_ == false)
{
this->removed_ = true;
// Only destroy the lock if we're the ones who initialized
// it.
if (!this->lockname_)
ACE_OS::munmap ((void *) this->process_lock_,
sizeof (ACE_mutex_t));
else
{
result = ACE_OS::mutex_destroy (this->process_lock_);
ACE_OS::munmap ((void *) this->process_lock_,
sizeof (ACE_mutex_t));
ACE_OS::shm_unlink (this->lockname_);
ACE_OS::free (
static_cast<void *> (
const_cast<ACE_TCHAR *> (this->lockname_)));
}
}
}
else
{
#else /* !ACE_HAS_PTHREADS && !ACE_HAS_STHREADS */
if (this->removed_ == false)
{
this->removed_ = true;
result = ACE_OS::mutex_destroy (&this->lock_);
}
#endif /* ACE_HAS_PTHREADS || ACE_HAS_STHREADS */
#if defined (ACE_HAS_PTHREADS) || defined (ACE_HAS_STHREADS)
}
#endif /* ACE_HAS_PTHREADS || ACE_HAS_STHREADS */
return result;
}
Specifically I don't understand why the call to ACE_OS::mutex_destroy
is conditional and thus not called when pthreads are enabled. This effectively renders the remove
method empty-bodied for non-interprocess mutexes. Can someone explain the rationale for this piece of code?