From 46cd657eee1d6cb13ccbb2a69d00c62f7d05dcca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simon McVittie Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 16:58:08 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Stop asserting that we're not using the dummy lock implementation That implementation no longer exists, so neither 0xABCDEF nor 0xABCDEF2 has any special meaning any more. Bug: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54972 Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie --- test/name-test/test-threads-init.c | 10 ---------- 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/test/name-test/test-threads-init.c b/test/name-test/test-threads-init.c index 580ffe1..a517e2a 100644 --- a/test/name-test/test-threads-init.c +++ b/test/name-test/test-threads-init.c @@ -149,16 +149,6 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[]) &dispatch_cond1, &io_path_cond1); - /* Since 1.7 it is no longer the case that mutex1 != mutex2, because - * initializing global locks automatically initializes locks - * in general. However, it is true that the mutex is not the dummy - * implementation, which is what we really wanted to check here. */ - _dbus_assert (mutex1 != (DBusMutex *) 0xABCDEF); - _dbus_assert (dispatch_mutex1 != (DBusMutex *) 0xABCDEF); - _dbus_assert (dispatch_cond1 != (DBusCondVar *) 0xABCDEF2); - _dbus_assert (io_path_mutex1 != (DBusMutex *) 0xABCDEF); - _dbus_assert (io_path_cond1 != (DBusCondVar *) 0xABCDEF2); - _run_iteration (conn); _dbus_connection_test_get_locks (conn, &mutex2, &dispatch_mutex2, -- 1.7.10.4