[PATCH 03/43] conf: nwfilter_ipaddrmap: convert virMutex to GMutex

Laine Stump laine at laine.org
Fri Apr 10 17:06:27 UTC 2020

On 4/10/20 1:01 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 4/10/20 9:54 AM, Rafael Fonseca wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Rafael Fonseca <r4f4rfs at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   src/conf/nwfilter_ipaddrmap.c | 14 +++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/src/conf/nwfilter_ipaddrmap.c 
>> b/src/conf/nwfilter_ipaddrmap.c
>> index 672a58be3a..3c1927f9ff 100644
>> --- a/src/conf/nwfilter_ipaddrmap.c
>> +++ b/src/conf/nwfilter_ipaddrmap.c
>> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
>>   -static virMutex ipAddressMapLock = VIR_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
>> +G_LOCK_DEFINE_STATIC(ipAddressMapLock);
> The documentation for the G_LOCK() macros says that the name provided 
> in the args will be mangled, so you can just use the same name as the 
> object you're going to lock, e.g.:
> instead of "ipAddressMapLock". The upside is that's less typing, and 
> if you do a keyword search you'll find all the places where 
> ipAddressMap is locked/unlocked along with its uses. The downside 
> would be that you couldn't as easily do a keyword search for just the 
> lock manipulation (you'd need to use a regex to search for 
> "G_.*ipAddressMap" or something like that); I still kind of like the 
> idea of using the exact same name, just because it encourages 
> consistency.
> Beyond that, why not just use the G_*() macros for *all* locks in 
> libvirt instead of only using them in cases of static locks? It seems 
> strange to use the convenience macros in some cases and the raw 
> functions in others. (I'm looking at this with 0 experience using the 
> Glib locks, so maybe there's something basic I'm just not aware of - 
> maybe something necessary is missing from the G_LOCK() macros?).

Okay, I already see that the G_LOCK macros don't cover everything - no 
recursive mutexes and no RW mutexes for example. Too bad - it would be 
good to be consistent.

More information about the libvir-list mailing list