Patch for "strict order mutex"

Chris Johns chrisj at
Sat Dec 22 21:11:14 UTC 2007

Joel Sherrill wrote:
> I apologize to everyone for not doing a better job before
> committing that patch. I ended up taking my wife to the
> hospital yesterday morning and I started committing to
> clean my tree at the end of the year.  I thought everything
> was OK but obviously I didn't do a full test run and I
> know I didn't try networking.

No harm done. This is CVS after all.

> The goal of this patch is good and desirable.  It just
> needs to work.  It should be optional because it does
> change behavior that has existed in RTEMS from the
> earliest public releases and because it does add some
> overhead.

Does the change in behavior mean a better and more compliant RTEMS ?

If so then we need to turn this code on by default and allow a user to disable 
it if they need time to fix their application.

> I debated whether to leave it enabled or disabled by
> default and decided that enabled by default would
> get it tested.

If this is an improvement to RTEMS I would like to see it on. I intend to do 
some more testing when I have the time.

The issue was a bug in the configure part of the patch caused the code to be 
compiled in and this exposed the bug. If the configure bug had not existed the 
code could have sat with the bug for a long time.


More information about the users mailing list