Re: [reSIProcate] mutex in UdpTransport
Hi Jason,
I think you are right and it is unecessary. I can't remember why I put it
there. mTxFifo has its own mutex and myMutex is only required in ::stunResult
and ::process in order to protect mStunMappedAddress.
So I think the myMutex line in ::stunSendTest can be removed safely.
Best regards,
Freundliche Grüße,
Matthias Moetje
______________________________________________
TERASENS GmbH Phone: +49.89.143370-0
Augustenstraße 24 Fax: +49.89.143370-22
80333 Munich e-mail: info@xxxxxxxxxxxx
GERMANY Web: www.terasens.com
______________________________________________
> -----Original Message-----
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Jason Fischl
> Sent: Samstag, 7. Juli 2007 01:53
> To: resiprocate-devel
> Subject: [reSIProcate] mutex in UdpTransport
>
> Forgive me if I am missing the obvious but why is there a mutex in the
> STUN code of UdpTransport?
> i.e. UdpTransport::stunSendTest.
>
> This doesn't seem necessary to me.
>
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel