Timeline for Why is it that "the process that locks the mutex must be the one to unlock it "?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 2020 at 13:53 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Broke The Law | @Tim process A locks the semaphore and process B unlocks it. | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 19:49 | comment | added | Tim | @user253751 Could you give an example of ""it is possible for one process to lock a binary semaphore and for another to unlock it"? ? | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 18:46 | comment | added | Tim | @user253751 where does the definition of a mutex lock imply that "the process that locks the mutex (sets the value to zero) must be the one to unlock it "? | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 16:08 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Broke The Law | @Tim it means that if you have a binary semaphore, it doesn't have to be unlocked by the same process that locked it. But if you have a mutex, it does. | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 16:01 | history | edited | JacquesB | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 201 characters in body |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 16:01 | comment | added | Tim | Thanks. What does the first book mean by "it is possible for one process to lock a binary semaphore and for another to unlock it"? | |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 15:58 | history | edited | JacquesB | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 201 characters in body |
| Nov 9, 2020 at 15:48 | history | answered | JacquesB | CC BY-SA 4.0 |