[PATCH 1/8] wsdapi: Use slim reader/writer lock instead of critical section.
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(-)
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...
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
participants (4)
-
Huw Davies -
Owen Rudge -
Owen Rudge -
Zebediah Figura