[PATCH 1/8] wsdapi: Use slim reader/writer lock instead of critical section.

[Owen Rudge]

Signed-off-by: Owen Rudge <orudge(a)codeweavers.com>
---
  dlls/wsdapi/discovery.c       | 13 ++++++-------
  dlls/wsdapi/network.c         |  4 ++--
  dlls/wsdapi/wsdapi_internal.h |  2 +-
  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

[Huw Davies]

Signed-off-by: Huw Davies <huw(a)codeweavers.com>

[Zebediah Figura]

On 13/09/18 03:44, Owen Rudge wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Owen Rudge <orudge(a)codeweavers.com>
> ---
>  dlls/wsdapi/discovery.c       | 13 ++++++-------
>  dlls/wsdapi/network.c         |  4 ++--
>  dlls/wsdapi/wsdapi_internal.h |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

I haven't looked at the rest of the series, but is this functionally
necessary? Given that SRW locks will provide worse performance on Wine
than critical sections. Although I think SRW locks can be made to use
futexes internally too...

[Owen Rudge]

On 13/09/2018 15:24, Zebediah Figura wrote:
> I haven't looked at the rest of the series, but is this functionally
> necessary? Given that SRW locks will provide worse performance on Wine
> than critical sections. Although I think SRW locks can be made to use
> futexes internally too...

Thanks for picking up on this - it looks like, upon reflection, it 
shouldn't be required. The initial issue arose due to the lack of 
duplicate message filtering.

I'll resubmit the patches and drop this one.

Thanks,

Owen