tdb: don't suppress the transaction lock because of the allrecord lock.
commitb754f61d235bdc3e410b60014d6be4072645e16f
authorRusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:01:49 +0000 (17 12:31 +1030)
committerRusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:01:49 +0000 (17 12:31 +1030)
tree12849992718ca8e4c8934dd5f4d79c587b5ffd55
parent5d9de604d92d227899e9b861c6beafb2e4fa61e0
tdb: don't suppress the transaction lock because of the allrecord lock.

tdb_transaction_lock() and tdb_transaction_unlock() do nothing if we
hold the allrecord lock.  However, the two locks don't overlap, so
this is wrong.

This simplification makes the transaction lock a straight-forward nested
lock.

There are two callers for these functions:
1) The transaction code, which already makes sure the allrecord_lock
   isn't held.
2) The traverse code, which wants to stop transactions whether it has the
   allrecord lock or not.  There have been deadlocks here before, however
   this should not bring them back (I hope!)

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
lib/tdb/common/lock.c