trafficserver-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Peach <jpe...@apache.org>
Subject optional continuation mutexes?
Date Thu, 20 Dec 2012 06:15:11 GMT
Hi all,

From the HttpAccept comments, it looks like it used to be optional for continuations to have
a mutex. It no longer is, since if I remove the mutex from SSLNextProtocolAccept, traffic_server
segfaults trying to lock it:

* thread #26: tid = 0x3303, 0x000000010ab6dae4 traffic_server`Mutex_lock(ProxyMutex*, EThread*)
+ 20 at I_Lock.h:266, stop reason = EXC_BAD_ACCESS (code=1, address=0x50)
    frame #0: 0x000000010ab6dae4 traffic_server`Mutex_lock(ProxyMutex*, EThread*) + 20 at
I_Lock.h:266
    frame #1: 0x000000010abbecb7 traffic_server`MutexLock::MutexLock(ProxyMutex*, EThread*)
+ 71 at I_Lock.h:335
    frame #2: 0x000000010abbbb75 traffic_server`MutexLock::MutexLock(ProxyMutex*, EThread*)
+ 37 at I_Lock.h:336
    frame #3: 0x000000010ad8feef traffic_server`SSLNextProtocolAccept::mainEvent(int, void*)
+ 207 at SSLNextProtocolAccept.cc:129
    frame #4: 0x000000010ab6c377 traffic_server`Continuation::handleEvent(int, void*) + 119
at I_Continuation.h:146
    frame #5: 0x000000010ada3da2 traffic_server`UnixNetVConnection::acceptEvent(int, Event*)
+ 786 at UnixNetVConnection.cc:974

Is there a good reason for this change? Is there a recommended pattern for dealing with an
optional continuation mutex?

J
Mime
View raw message