On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.orgwrote:
George Stephanos gaf.stephanos@gmail.com writes:
You need some sort of free list instead of a linear search.Alright.
Also you can probably avoid one level of pointers and store objects directly.I thought about this. If I store objects directly, accessing any would require a lock on the whole table so I guarantee it's not moved or reallocated elsewhere. This would obviously be pretty slow.
You already have a lock on the whole table anyway.
I do. But it's only used when creating new handles or on table reallocations. Earlier I could reallocate the table without worrying about the handles.
In your case that same lock would have to be grabbed when *accessing* any of the handles so I make sure the table is not being reallocated. That results in: no two handles can be accessed concurrently as opposed to my current code where they can. I might be missing something though :|
Returning a pointer to the object outside of the critical section is not a good idea.The critical section just protects the table and not the handles/structs themselves.
Yes, that's the problem. The structs have to be protected too.
Maybe a lock inside each struct?
-- Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org