Search Results

Search found 1137 results on 46 pages for 'optimistic locking'.

Page 11/46 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

• Which logs will tell me about the Touchpad and Keyboard locking up?

  - by Sepero

  I have an Asus N53SM laptop that I leave running for several weeks at a time. I never put it in hibernate or suspend, I only close the lid when I'm not using it. After a few days or weeks of running, the touchpad and keyboard will Both lock up (at the same time) for no apparent reason. I could be just surfing the internet when it happens. The touchpad and keyboard seem to only lock up when I'm actively using the laptop (not when idle), which may mean it's related to something I press, but I'm not sure? The touchpad never locks or unlocks when Pressing FN and the designated touchpad lock key (it does not seem to work on Linux). While the touchpad and keyboard are locked, I am able to plug in my USB mouse and successfully use it to control the screen cursor. I can also remotely get into the system with vnc and ssh, everything seems to run fine there as well. No processes appear out of control. It's just the laptops physical touchpad and keyboard that are locking up. How might I go about diagnosing this problem? What system logs to look at? (anything specific to look for in them?) Perhaps I should try reloading some modules? Any thing else I should inspect?

  Read the article

• PHP MySQLi timeout not working

  - by Marcin

  Hi guys I have a weird problem with mysqli timeout options, here you go: I am using mysqli_init() and real_connect() in order to set MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT $this->__mysqli = mysqli_init(); if(!$this->__mysqli->options(MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT,1)) throw new Exception('Timeout settings failed') $this->__mysqli->real_connect(host,user,pass,db); .... Then I am initiating query on locked table (LOCKE TABLE users WRITE) and its just hanging, ignoring all my settings even: set_time_limit(1); ini_set('max_execution_time',1); ini_set('default_socket_timeout',1); ini_set('mysql.connect_timeout',1); I understand why set_time_limit(1) and max_execution_time is ignored but why other timeouts and especially MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT are ignored and how to solve it. I am using PHP 5.3.1 on Windows and Linux boxes, please help.

  Read the article

• FileSystemWatcher.WaitForChanged returns, but there is still a lock on the file

  - by SnOrfus

  I have a program that send a document to a pdf printer driver and that driver prints to a particular directory. After the print I want to attach the pdf to an e-mail (MailMessage) and send it off. Right now, I send the document to the printer (wich spawns a new process) and then call a FileSystemWatcher.WaitForChanged(WaitForChangedResult.Created) but when the object is created, it's still not done "printing" and the pdf printer still has a lock on it, throwing an error when I try to attach that file to an e-mail. I've considered a plain Thread.Sleep(2000) or whatever, but that's far less than ideal. I considered putting the attachment code in a try/catch block and looping on failure, but again, that's just bad news. I can't really think of an elegant solution.

  Read the article

• How do filesystems handle concurrent read/write?

  - by kemp

  User A asks the system to read file foo and at the same time user B wants to save his or her data onto the same file. How is this situation handled on the filesystem level?

  Read the article

• Using Monitor Class

  - by Mubashar Ahmad

  Dear All I would like to ask couple of Questions regarding the use of Monitor Class in .Net. To understand the Questions please look at the following Code. public class MyClass { private List<int> _MyCollection = new List<int>(); public void GetLock() { Monitor.Enter(_MyCollection); } public void ReleaseLock() { Monitor.Exit(_MyCollection); } public void UpdateCollection(/*anyparam*/) { //update collection without lock on collection } } public class MyAppMain { private static MyClass myclass = new MyClass(); public static void main(args) { try { myclass.GetLock(); //an operation that does not do any update on myclass but wanted //to ensure that the collection within myclass never update //while its doing following opetion //Do somthing } finally { myclass.ReleaseLock(); } } } Now is this the right use of monitor and do i need to use Pulse or PulseAll to signal waiting thread and if so than should use plus before or after Exit function? Regards Mubashar

  Read the article

• We have multiple app servers running against a single database. How do I ensure that each row in a q

  - by Dave

  We have about 7 app servers running .NET windows services that ping a single sql server 2005 queue table and fetch a fixed amount of records to process at fixed intervals. The amount of records to process and the amount of time between fetches are both configurable and are initially set to 100 and 30 seconds initially. Currently, my queue table has an int status column which can be either "Ready, Processing, Complete, Error". The proc that fetches the records has a sql transaction with the following code inside the transaction: 1) Fetch x number of records into temp table where the status is "Ready". The select uses a holdlock hint 2) Update the status on those records in the Queue table to "Processing" The .NET services do some processing that may take seconds or even minutes per record. Another proc is called per record that simply updates the status to "Complete". The update proc has no transaction as I'm leaning on the implicit transaction as part of the update clause here. I don't know the traffic exceptions for this but figure it will be under 10k records per day. Is this the best way to handle this scenario? If so, are there any details that I've left out, such as a hint here or there? Thanks! Dave

  Read the article

• Does IsolatedStorageFileStream.Lock work under SIlverlight4?

  - by Noah

  Silverlight uses an IsolatedStorageFileStream to open files. The IsolatedStorageFileStreamunder NET.4 claims to support the Lock Method (Inherited from FileStream) The following code IsolatedStorageFile isf; IsolatedStorageFileStream lockStream = new IsolatedStorageFileStream( "my.lck", FileMode.OpenOrCreate, isf ); lockStream.Lock( 0, 0 ); generates the following error, wrapped for readability, under VS2010 and Silverlight 4 'System.IO.IsolatedStorage.IsolatedStorageFileStream' does not contain a definition for 'Lock' and no extension method 'Lock' accepting a first argument of type 'System.IO.IsolatedStorage.IsolatedStorageFileStream' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)

  Read the article

• Subversion lock-modify-unlock solution for SSIS .dtsx

  - by EasyDot

  Hello! I wonder how i could set up a developer enviroment for SSIS,.dtsx packages in Subversion? I read about Subversion "svn:needs-lock" property and the ability to set auto-props in a subversion repository by setting "enable-auto-props = yes" in the repository config file. The "svn:needs-lock" property is neccesary when working with SSIS,dtsx to handle the files like binary files wich must be locked to avoid mergingconflicts. How should i configure Subversion config file for this kind of development? An example for setting auto-prop svn:needs-lock to .doc files (I think its working?!): [miscellany] enable-auto-props = yes [auto-props] *.doc = svn:mime-type=application/msword;svn:needs-lock=*

  Read the article

• pthreads: reader/writer locks, upgrading read lock to write lock

  - by ScaryAardvark

  I'm using read/write locks on Linux and I've found that trying to upgrade a read locked object to a write lock deadlocks. i.e. // acquire the read lock in thread 1. pthread_rwlock_rdlock( &lock ); // make a decision to upgrade the lock in threads 1. pthread_rwlock_wrlock( &lock ); // this deadlocks as already hold read lock. I've read the man page and it's quite specific. The calling thread may deadlock if at the time the call is made it holds the read-write lock (whether a read or write lock). What is the best way to upgrade a read lock to a write lock in these circumstances.. I don't want to introduce a race on the variable I'm protecting. Presumably I can create another mutex to encompass the releasing of the read lock and the acquiring of the write lock but then I don't really see the use of read/write locks. I might as well simply use a normal mutex. Thx

  Read the article

• Java Memory Model: reordering and concurrent locks

  - by Steffen Heil

  Hi The java meomry model mandates that synchronize blocks that synchronize on the same monitor enforce a before-after-realtion on the variables modified within those blocks. Example: // in thread A synchronized( lock ) { x = true; } // in thread B synchronized( lock ) { System.out.println( x ); } In this case it is garanteed that thread B will see x==true as long as thread A already passed that synchronized-block. Now I am in the process to rewrite lots of code to use the more flexible (and said to be faster) locks in java.util.concurrent, especially the ReentrantReadWriteLock. So the example looks like this: // in thread A synchronized( lock ) { lock.writeLock().lock(); x = true; lock.writeLock().unlock(); } // in thread B synchronized( lock ) { lock.readLock().lock(); System.out.println( x ); lock.readLock().unlock(); } However, I have not seen any hints within the memory model specification that such locks also imply the nessessary ordering. Looking into the implementation it seems to rely on the access to volatile variables inside AbstractQueuedSynchronizer (for the sun implementation at least). However this is not part of any specification and moreover access to non-volatile variables is not really condsidered covered by the memory barrier given by these variables, is it? So, here are my questions: Is it safe to assume the same ordering as with the "old" synchronized blocks? Is this documented somewhere? Is accessing any volatile variable a memory barrier for any other variable? Regards, Steffen

  Read the article

• Is this (Lock-Free) Queue Implementation Thread-Safe?

  - by Hosam Aly

  I am trying to create a lock-free queue implementation in Java, mainly for personal learning. The queue should be a general one, allowing any number of readers and/or writers concurrently. Would you please review it, and suggest any improvements/issues you find? Thank you. import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference; public class LockFreeQueue<T> { private static class Node<E> { E value; volatile Node<E> next; Node(E value) { this.value = value; } } private AtomicReference<Node<T>> head, tail; public LockFreeQueue() { // have both head and tail point to a dummy node Node<T> dummyNode = new Node<T>(null); head = new AtomicReference<Node<T>>(dummyNode); tail = new AtomicReference<Node<T>>(dummyNode); } /** * Puts an object at the end of the queue. */ public void putObject(T value) { Node<T> newNode = new Node<T>(value); Node<T> prevTailNode = tail.getAndSet(newNode); prevTailNode.next = newNode; } /** * Gets an object from the beginning of the queue. The object is removed * from the queue. If there are no objects in the queue, returns null. */ public T getObject() { Node<T> headNode, valueNode; // move head node to the next node using atomic semantics // as long as next node is not null do { headNode = head.get(); valueNode = headNode.next; // try until the whole loop executes pseudo-atomically // (i.e. unaffected by modifications done by other threads) } while (valueNode != null && !head.compareAndSet(headNode, valueNode)); T value = (valueNode != null ? valueNode.value : null); // release the value pointed to by head, keeping the head node dummy if (valueNode != null) valueNode.value = null; return value; }

  Read the article

• Spinlocks, How Much Useful Are They?

  - by unknown

  How often do you find yourself actually using spinlocks in your code? How common is it to come across a situation where using a busy loop actually outperforms the usage of locks? Personally, when I write some sort of code that requires thread safety, I tend to benchmark it with different synchronization primitives, and as far as it goes, it seems like using locks gives better performance than using spinlocks. No matter for how little time I actually hold the lock, the amount of contention I receive when using spinlocks is far greater than the amount I get from using locks (of course, I run my tests on a multiprocessor machine). I realize that it's more likely to come across a spinlock in "low-level" code, but I'm interested to know whether you find it useful in even a more high-level kind of programming?

  Read the article

• Multi-part question about multi-threading, locks and multi-core processors (multi ^ 3)

  - by MusiGenesis

  I have a program with two methods. The first method takes two arrays as parameters, and performs an operation in which values from one array are conditionally written into the other, like so: void Blend(int[] dest, int[] src, int offset) { for (int i = 0; i < src.Length; i++) { int rdr = dest[i + offset]; dest[i + offset] = src[i] > rdr? src[i] : rdr; } } The second method creates two separate sets of int arrays and iterates through them such that each array of one set is Blended with each array from the other set, like so: void CrossBlend() { int[][] set1 = new int[150][75000]; // we'll pretend this actually compiles int[][] set2 = new int[25][10000]; // we'll pretend this actually compiles for (int i1 = 0; i1 < set1.Length; i1++) { for (int i2 = 0; i2 < set2.Length; i2++) { Blend(set1[i1], set2[i2], 0); // or any offset, doesn't matter } } } First question: Since this apporoach is an obvious candidate for parallelization, is it intrinsically thread-safe? It seems like no, since I can conceive a scenario (unlikely, I think) where one thread's changes are lost because a different threads ~simultaneous operation. If no, would this: void Blend(int[] dest, int[] src, int offset) { lock (dest) { for (int i = 0; i < src.Length; i++) { int rdr = dest[i + offset]; dest[i + offset] = src[i] > rdr? src[i] : rdr; } } } be an effective fix? Second question: If so, what would be the likely performance cost of using locks like this? I assume that with something like this, if a thread attempts to lock a destination array that is currently locked by another thread, the first thread would block until the lock was released instead of continuing to process something. Also, how much time does it actually take to acquire a lock? Nanosecond scale, or worse than that? Would this be a major issue in something like this? Third question: How would I best approach this problem in a multi-threaded way that would take advantage of multi-core processors (and this is based on the potentially wrong assumption that a multi-threaded solution would not speed up this operation on a single core processor)? I'm guessing that I would want to have one thread running per core, but I don't know if that's true.

  Read the article

• Release another user's lock obtained with sp_getapplock on SQL Server

  - by joshperry

  We have a system that uses sp_getapplock to create an exclusive mutex any time someone opens an order in the GUI. This is used to prevent multiple people from making changes to an order simultaneously. Sometimes people will open an order and go home, leaving it open. This effectively blocks anyone from being able to make changes to the order. I then get emails, calls and end up doing a kill <spid> in enterprise manager. Obviously I've gotten sick of this and want to make a quick self-service webform. The main problem I've run into is that kill requires sysadmin privileges, which I do not want to give to the user that the our website runs as. I have tried sp_releaseapplock but this doesn't let you release another user's lock (even when calling it as a sysadmin). So, finally my question; does anyone know of an alternative method to release a lock that was obtained by another user using sp_getapplock?

  Read the article

• Disable inserted lines in multiline TextBox

  - by Shohin

  I have a multiline Textbox for my web page. When user logs in and enters text and press "Save" button, data will be saved. Then, next time when the same user logs in and searches for data, I want him to edit only new text in multiline TextBox, not removing or replacing previously entered text. Is there any way to make multiline TextBox to lock inserted lines or inserted text and allow to only add text? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• How can I implement a proper counter bean with EJB 3.0?

  - by Aaron Digulla

  I have this entity bean: import javax.persistence.*; @Entity public class CounterTest { private int id; private int counter; @Id public int getId() { return id; } public void setId(int id) { this.id = id; } public int getCounter() { return counter; } public void setCounter(int counter) { this.counter = counter; } } and this stateful bean to increment a counter: import java.rmi.RemoteException; import javax.ejb.*; import javax.persistence.*; @Stateful public class CounterTestBean implements CounterTestRemote { @PersistenceContext(unitName = "JavaEE") EntityManager manager; public void initDB() { CounterTest ct = new CounterTest(); ct.setNr(1); ct.setWert(1); manager.persist(ct); } public boolean testCounterWithLock() { try { CounterTest ct = manager.find(CounterTest.class, 1); manager.lock(ct, LockModeType.WRITE); int wert = ct.getWert(); ct.setWert(wert + 1); manager.flush(); return true; } catch (Throwable t) { return false; } } } When I call testCounterWithLock() from three threads 500 times each, the counter gets incremented between 13 and 1279 times. How do I fix this code so that it is incremented 1500 times?

  Read the article

• PHP MySQLi timeout on locked tables?

  - by Marcin

  Hi guys I have a weird problem with mysqli timeout options, here you go: I am using mysqli_init() and real_connect() in order to set MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT $this->__mysqli = mysqli_init(); if(!$this->__mysqli->options(MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT,1)) throw new Exception('Timeout settings failed') $this->__mysqli->real_connect(host,user,pass,db); .... Then I am initiating query on locked table (LOCKE TABLE users WRITE) and its just hanging, ignoring all my settings even: set_time_limit(1); ini_set('max_execution_time',1); ini_set('default_socket_timeout',1); ini_set('mysql.connect_timeout',1); I understand why set_time_limit(1) and max_execution_time is ignored but why other timeouts and especially MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT are ignored and how to solve it. I am using PHP 5.3.1 on Windows and Linux boxes, please help.

  Read the article

• How is thread synchronization implemented, at the assembly language level?

  - by Martin

  While I'm familiar with concurrent programming concepts such as mutexes and semaphores, I have never understood how they are implemented at the assembly language level. I imagine there being a set of memory "flags" saying: lock A is held by thread 1 lock B is held by thread 3 lock C is not held by any thread etc But how is access to these flags synchronized between threads? Something like this naive example would only create a race condition: mov edx, [myThreadId] wait: cmp [lock], 0 jne wait mov [lock], edx ; I wanted an exclusive lock but the above ; three instructions are not an atomic operation :(

  Read the article

• Do condition variables still need a mutex if you're changing the checked value atomically?

  - by Joseph Garvin

  Here is the typical way to use a condition variable: // The reader(s) lock(some_mutex); if(protected_by_mutex_var != desired_value) some_condition.wait(some_mutex); unlock(some_mutex); // The writer lock(some_mutex); protected_by_mutex_var = desired_value; unlock(some_mutex); some_condition.notify_all(); But if protected_by_mutex_var is set atomically by say, a compare-and-swap instruction, does the mutex serve any purpose (other than that pthreads and other APIs require you to pass in a mutex)? Is it protecting state used to implement the condition? If not, is it safe then to do this?: // The writer protected_by_mutex_var = desired_value; some_condition.notify_all(); With the writer never directly interacting with the reader's mutex? If so, is it even necessary that different readers use the same mutex?

  Read the article

• How do you stop a user-instance of Sql Server? (Sql Express user instance database files locked, eve

  - by Bittercoder

  When using SQL Server Express 2005's User Instance feature with a connection string like this: <add name="Default" connectionString="Data Source=.\SQLExpress; AttachDbFilename=C:\My App\Data\MyApp.mdf; Initial Catalog=MyApp; User Instance=True; MultipleActiveResultSets=true; Trusted_Connection=Yes;" /> We find that we can't copy the database files MyApp.mdf and MyApp_Log.ldf (because they're locked) even after stopping the SqlExpress service, and have to resort to setting the SqlExpress service from automatic to manual startup mode, and then restarting the machine, before we can then copy the files. It was my understanding that stopping the SqlExpress service should stop all the user instances as well, which should release the locks on those files. But this does not seem to be the case - could anyone shed some light on how to stop a user instance, such that it's database files are no longer locked? Update OK, I stopped being lazy and fired up Process Explorer. Lock was held by sqlserver.exe - but there are two instances of sql server: sqlserver.exe PID: 4680 User Name: DefaultAppPool sqlserver.exe PID: 4644 User Name: NETWORK SERVICE The file is open by the sqlserver.exe instance with the PID: 4680 Stopping the "SQL Server (SQLEXPRESS)" service, killed off the process with PID: 4644, but left PID: 4680 alone. Seeing as the owner of the remaining process was DefaultAppPool, next thing I tried was stopping IIS (this database is being used from an ASP.Net application). Unfortunately this didn't kill the process off either. Manually killing off the remaining sql server process does remove the open file handle on the database files, allowing them to be copied/moved. Unfortunately I wish to copy/restore those files in some pre/post install tasks of a WiX installer - as such I was hoping there might be a way to achieve this by stopping a windows service, rather then having to shell out to kill all instances of sqlserver.exe as that poses some problems: Killing all the sqlserver.exe instances may have undesirable consequencies for users with other Sql Server instances on their machines. I can't restart those instances easily. Introduces additional complexities into the installer. Does anyone have any further thoughts on how to shutdown instances of sql server associated with a specific user instance?

  Read the article

• Distributed Lock Service over MySql/GigaSpaces/Netapp

  - by ripper234

  Disclaimer: I already asked this question, but without the deployment requirement. I got an answer that got 3 upvotes, and when I edited the question to include the deployment requirement the answer then became irrelevant. The reason I'm resubmitting is because SO considers the original question 'answered', even though I got no meaningful upvoted answer. I opened a uservoice submission about this problem. The reason I reposted is so StackOverflow consider the original question answered, so it doesn't show up on the 'unanswered questions' tab. Which distributed lock service would you use? Requirements are: A mutual exclusion (lock) that can be seen from different processes/machines lock...release semantics Automatic lock release after a certain timeout - if lock holder dies, it will automatically be freed after X seconds Java implementation Easy deployment - must not require complicated deployment beyond either Netapp, MySql or GigaSpaces. Must play well with those products (especially GigaSpaces - this is why TerraCotta was ruled out). Nice to have: .Net implementation If it's free: Deadlock detection / mitigation I'm not interested in answers like "it can be done over a database", or "it can be done over JavaSpaces" - I know. Relevant answers should only contain a ready, out-of-the-box, proven implementation.

  Read the article

• SQL Server Compact timed out waiting for a lock

  - by jankhana

  Hi all, I'm having an application in that i use Sql Compact 3.5 with VS2008. I'm running multiple threads in my application which contacts the compact database and accesses the row. It selects and deletes those rows in a fashion i.e selecting and giving to the application 5 rows and deleting those rows from the table. It works great with a single thread but if i use multiple threads i.e if 3 or more threads are running I get very often the TimeOut Error!!! I have increased the Time out property in the connection string but it didn't give me expected result. The error log is as follow: SQL Server Compact timed out waiting for a lock. The default lock time is 2000ms for devices and 5000ms for desktops. The default lock timeout can be increased in the connection string using the ssce: default lock timeout property. [ Session id = 5,Thread id = 4204,Process id = 4808,Table name = XXX,Conflict type = x lock (s blocks),Resource = TAB ] The Query that I use to retrieve is as follows: " select Top(5) * from TableName order by id; delete from TableName where id in(select top(5) id from TableName order by id); " Is there any way by which we can avoid this Time Out exception??????? The above query I un as a transaction in VS2008 one using SQLCECommand and the other using SqlCEDataAdapter. Any Idea!!!!!! Reply

  Read the article

• Is SynchronizationContext.Post() threadsafe?

  - by cyclotis04

  This is a pretty basic question, and I imagine that it is, but I can't find any definitive answer. Is SynchronizationContext.Post() threadsafe? I have a member variable which holds the main thread's context, and _context.Post() is being called from multiple threads. I imagine that Post() could be called simultaneously on the object. Should I do something like lock (_contextLock) _context.Post(myDelegate, myEventArgs); or is that unnecessary? Edit: MSDN states that "Any instance members are not guaranteed to be thread safe." Should I keep my lock(), then?

  Read the article

• Is lock returned by ReentrantReadWriteLock equivalent to it's read and write locks?

  - by Todd

  Hello, I have been looking around for the answer to this, but no joy. In Java, is using the lock created by ReentrantReadWriteLock equivalent to getting the read and write locks as returned by readLock.lock() and writeLock.lock()? In other words, can I expect the read and write locks associated with the ReentrantReadWriteLock to be requested and held by synchronizing on the ReentrantReadWriteLock? My gut says "no" since any object can be used for synchronization. I wouldn't think that there would be special behavior for ReentrantReadWriteLock. However, special behavior is the corner case of which I may not be aware. Thanks, Todd

  Read the article

• C++ Unlocking a std::mutex before calling std::unique_lock wait

  - by Sant Kadog

  I have a multithreaded application (using std::thread) with a manager (class Tree) that executes some piece of code on different subtrees (embedded struct SubTree) in parallel. The basic idea is that each instance of SubTree has a deque that store objects. If the deque is empty, the thread waits until a new element is inserted in the deque or the termination criteria is reached. One subtree can generate objects and push them in the deque of another subtree. For convenience, all my std::mutex, std::locks and std::variable_condition are stored in a struct called "locks". The class Tree creates some threads that run the following method (first attempt) : void Tree::launch(SubTree & st, Locks & locks ) { /* some code */ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> deque_lock(locks.deque_mutex_[st.id_]) ; // lock the access to the deque of subtree st if (st.deque_.empty()) // check that the deque is still empty { // some threads are still running, wait for them to terminate std::unique_lock<std::mutex> wait_lock(locks.restart_mutex_[st.id_]) ; locks.restart_condition_[st.id_].wait(wait_lock) ; } /* some code */ } The problem is that "deque_lock" is still locked while the thread is waiting. Hence no object can be added in the deque of the current thread by a concurrent one. So I turned the lock_guard into a unique_lock and managed the lock/unlock manually : void launch(SubTree & st, Locks & locks ) { /* some code */ std::unique_lock<std::mutex> deque_lock(locks.deque_mutex_[st.id_]) ; // lock the access to the deque of subtree st if (st.deque_.empty()) // check that the deque is still empty { deque_lock.unlock() ; // unlock the access to the deque to enable the other threads to add objects // DATA RACE : nothing must happen to the unprotected deque here !!!!!! // some threads are still running, wait for them to terminate std::unique_lock<std::mutex> wait_lock(locks.restart_mutex_[st.id_]) ; locks.restart_condition_[st.id_].wait(wait_lock) ; } /* some code */ } The problem now, is that there is a data race, and I would like to make sure that the "wait" instruction is performed directly after the "deque_lock.unlock()" one. Would anyone know a way to create such a critical instruction sequence with the standard library ? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >