[quote="emersonknapp, post:3, topic:7930"]
I kept all existing locking logic intact but shifted ownership of the locking around - The main difference is that in favor of a private mutex ownership patterm, I removed the lock-wrapper LockedObject pattern, because it spread out locking and safety in such a way that it would be easy to make more mistakes, spreads ownership of safety to any user of the data, instead of centralizing in the thread-accessed data. That may not be the way we want to go, its just what seems to make the most sense to me
[/quote]
I haven't looked at the details, but what you say makes sense from a maintainability point of view.
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/adding-clang-thread-safety-analysis-for-ros2-core-packages/7930/5) or reply to this email to respond.
If you do not want to receive messages from ros-users please use the unsubscribe link below. If you use the one above, you will stop all of ros-users from receiving updates.
______________________________________________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
Unsubscribe: <
http://lists.ros.org/mailman//options/ros-users>
(text/plain)