http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31406 --- Comment #41 from Rico <kgbricola(a)web.de> 2012-09-11 02:58:11 CDT --- The patch "Use separate locking for libxcb poll()" works fine for my test case (as the other two patches - sorry for the wrong test results). The speed looks nearly the same as without the patch. Thought, I'd probably destroy the mutex: diff --git a/src/xcb_conn.c b/src/xcb_conn.c index 7979491..8be1849 100644 --- a/src/xcb_conn.c +++ b/src/xcb_conn.c @@ -313,6 +314,7 @@ void xcb_disconnect(xcb_connection_t *c) close(c->fd); pthread_mutex_destroy(&c->iolock); + pthread_mutex_destroy(&c->pllock); _xcb_in_destroy(&c->in); _xcb_out_destroy(&c->out); -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.