7 /* Test that locks, having entered the lock acquisition tracking
8 machinery, are forgotten by it when the client does
9 pthread_{mutex,rwlock}_destroy. 2008-Nov-10: see comments below. */
14 pthread_mutex_t
*mx1
, *mx2
;
15 assert (sizeof(pthread_mutex_t
) <= 120);
16 mx1
= malloc(120 + sizeof(pthread_mutex_t
) - sizeof(pthread_mutex_t
));
17 mx2
= malloc(120 + sizeof(pthread_mutex_t
) - sizeof(pthread_mutex_t
));
22 r
= pthread_mutex_init( mx1
, NULL
); assert(r
==0);
23 r
= pthread_mutex_init( mx2
, NULL
); assert(r
==0);
25 /* Establish order 1 -> 2 */
26 fprintf(stderr
, "Establish order 1 -> 2\n");
27 r
= pthread_mutex_lock( mx1
); assert(r
==0);
28 r
= pthread_mutex_lock( mx2
); assert(r
==0);
30 r
= pthread_mutex_unlock( mx1
); assert(r
==0);
31 r
= pthread_mutex_unlock( mx2
); assert(r
==0);
33 /* Try order 2 -> 1. This gives an error. */
34 fprintf(stderr
, "Try order 2 -> 1. This gives an error.\n");
35 r
= pthread_mutex_lock( mx2
); assert(r
==0); /* error */
36 r
= pthread_mutex_lock( mx1
); assert(r
==0);
38 r
= pthread_mutex_unlock( mx1
); assert(r
==0);
39 r
= pthread_mutex_unlock( mx2
); assert(r
==0);
41 /* De-initialise 2 and re-initialise it. This gives it a new
42 identity, so a second locking sequence 2 -> 1 should now be OK. */
44 "Free 2 and re-allocate it. This gives it a new identity,\n");
45 fprintf(stderr
, "so a second locking sequence 2 -> 1 should now be OK.\n");
46 pthread_mutex_destroy( mx2
);
50 r
= pthread_mutex_init( mx2
, NULL
); assert(r
==0);
52 r
= pthread_mutex_lock( mx2
); assert(r
==0);
53 r
= pthread_mutex_lock( mx1
); assert(r
==0); /* no error */
55 r
= pthread_mutex_unlock( mx1
); assert(r
==0);
56 r
= pthread_mutex_unlock( mx2
); assert(r
==0);
60 fprintf(stderr
, "done\n");
61 r
= pthread_mutex_destroy( mx1
);
62 r
= pthread_mutex_destroy( mx2
);
70 /* 2008-Nov-10: I believe this test is flawed and requires further
71 investigation. I don't think it really tests what it claims to
72 test. In particular, it still gives the right results if
73 "pthread_mutex_destroy( mx2 );" at line 46 is commented out. In
74 other words, laog somehow forgets about mx2 so that 2->1 lock
75 sequence at lines 52/3 does not produce a complaint, EVEN WHEN the
76 preceding "pthread_mutex_destroy( mx2 );" is not observed. I don't
77 know why this is, but it seems highly suspicious to me. */