Hi Anton,
On 06.09.2017 18:43, Anton Romanov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
Anton Romanov theli.ua@gmail.com writes:
So, it's been a month now. Is there something I could do to have this accepted?
It's assigned to Jacek for review, but he's on vacation until tomorrow I believe, so it may be a few more days until he gets around to it. Sorry about the delay.
I see, thanks!
I'm sorry for the delay. I actually started reviewing it before vacations, had some concerns and didn't manage to take deeper look at this.
The code looks generally good and it matches what MSDN states about thread safety of those functions. Still, having little trust to MSDN, I wonder if it would make sense to make them more generally thread safe. We could, for example, store critical section inside schan_context and lock it in all functions accessing it. Did you consider that? It would make all those functions thread safe (with little overhead). It just seems more straightforward solution to me.
As for the approach you took, it may be correct. According to [1] that's also how gnutls works. Do you know if Secure Transport on Mac is similar? I couldn't find any documentation about it.
Thanks, Jacek