Really all your topics and it's example with explanations are awesome...sorry I missed to click like button for some of your video...please continue this kind of teaching.
Hi , In the example 0 Thread 1 Thread 2 std::lock(m1,m2); std::lock(m1,m2); In the above exmple you have said there is no deadlock because it will try to lock m1 first and m2 next, But in the definition of std::lock it is said that the order of locking the mutex cannot be defined. As per my understanding a deadlock can occur here as well because the order is not defined for locking. Please explain.
In example 1, is it possible, while thread1 unblocking the m1, context switching happened and thread2 could not find M1 free, so went for unblocking m2, and finally both threads could not the get the locks???
If you have code then can you please paste the code here? I can't watch my videos (it's considered bad) and to watch is i have to do so much here and there.
I only discovered your channel today and I have to admit that your explanations are explicit and easy to follow.
Thanks man!!
What an awesome explanation. So vividly explained mate. Thank you.
Glad you liked it
Really all your topics and it's example with explanations are awesome...sorry I missed to click like button for some of your video...please continue this kind of teaching.
Really good explanation of the flow
Hi Rupesh,
Please keep the mic near your mouth, your voice is very low in the video 😅.
Btw you are doing a great job 😊😄 Your videos helped me a lot
Oh..
Ok i will take care..
Thanks man!!
Great explanation 👍
Thanks man!!
So to avoid dead lock, it is best to put mutex in one lock statement like lock(m1,m2) instead of m1.lock() and m2.lock() , right?
Yes...
Hi ,
In the example 0
Thread 1 Thread 2
std::lock(m1,m2); std::lock(m1,m2);
In the above exmple you have said there is no deadlock because it will try to lock m1 first and m2 next, But in the definition of std::lock it is said that the order of locking the mutex cannot be defined. As per my understanding a deadlock can occur here as well because the order is not defined for locking. Please explain.
In example 1, is it possible, while thread1 unblocking the m1, context switching happened and thread2 could not find M1 free, so went for unblocking m2, and finally both threads could not the get the locks???
If you have code then can you please paste the code here?
I can't watch my videos (it's considered bad) and to watch is i have to do so much here and there.
Thanks ... Good Job !
Thank you too!
Exceed start temp lick or permanent perk of wave tip 😊
Permanent...
Where is your std::scoped_lock video?
Sorry i forgot 😊
When is tomorrow? jajajaj
Some times i go with the flow :P without realising.
may be he locked ur day "tomorrow" and forgot to unlock it.