svn commit: r302194 - head/lib/libthr/thread

[Ivan Klymenko]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:55:09 +0300
Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 04:44:03PM +0300, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 11:30:40 +0000 (UTC)
> > Konstantin Belousov <kib at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > Author: kib
> > > Date: Sat Jun 25 11:30:40 2016
> > > New Revision: 302194
> > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/302194
> > > 
> > > Log:
> > >   For pthread_mutex_trylock() call on owned error-check or
> > > non-portable adaptive mutex, return EDEADLK as required by
> > > POSIX.  The pthread_mutex_lock() is already compliant.
> > >   
> > >   Tested by:	Guy Yur <guyyur at gmail.com>
> > >   Sponsored by:	The FreeBSD Foundation
> > >   MFC after:	2 weeks
> > >   Approved by:	re (gjb)
> > > 
> > > Modified:
> > >   head/lib/libthr/thread/thr_mutex.c
> > > 
> > > Modified: head/lib/libthr/thread/thr_mutex.c
> > > ==============================================================================
> > > --- head/lib/libthr/thread/thr_mutex.c	Sat Jun 25 10:08:04
> > > 2016	(r302193) +++ head/lib/libthr/thread/thr_mutex.c
> > > Sat Jun 25 11:30:40 2016	(r302194) @@ -850,9 +850,12 @@
> > > mutex_self_trylock(struct pthread_mutex 
> > >  	switch (PMUTEX_TYPE(m->m_flags)) {
> > >  	case PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK:
> > > -	case PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL:
> > >  	case PTHREAD_MUTEX_ADAPTIVE_NP:
> > > -		ret = EBUSY; 
> > > +		ret = EDEADLK;
> > > +		break;
> > > +
> > > +	case PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL:
> > > +		ret = EBUSY;
> > >  		break;
> > >  
> > >  	case PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE:  
> > 
> > Update for r302191 to r302196 console-kit-daemon:
> > pid 1496 (console-kit-daemon), uid 0: exited on signal 6
> > pid 1581 (console-kit-daemon), uid 0: exited on signal 6
> > pid 5954 (console-kit-daemon), uid 0: exited on signal 6
> > pid 6010 (console-kit-daemon), uid 0: exited on signal 6
> > pid 6016 (console-kit-daemon), uid 0: exited on signal 6
> > 
> > Xorg session after authorization not started - black screen.  
> 
> Why did you replied to r302194 with this information ?  Does reverting
> r302194 (and only this revision) restores console-kit functionality ?

I do not know which one commits it breaks r302194 or next 302195.
I returned to r302191 for restores console-kit functionality.