SharedLock: remove wrong assertion in code
r644 contained some cleanup code for LockSet. Among other things it removed a syntax error that allowed an assertion that previously wan't really checked to trigger. It turns out that even though the spirit of that assertion was correct its actual implementation was wrong. While it's true that no sharers must be waiting if an exclusive holder is not present it might happen that when all the sharers wake up one of them releases the lock before some other even has had a chance to run. In this case __shr_wait would still be greater than 0, even if the sharer is not actually waiting, just pending a wakeup to proceed. Thus, removing the assertion in question. Reviewed-by: imsnah
Please register or sign in to comment