Re: DDraw: Protect the ddraw object list

[Mike McCormack]

Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> @@ -851,6 +853,13 @@ DllMain(HINSTANCE hInstDLL,
> -
>    /* Initialize the ddraw object list critical section unconditionally
> -
>     * Even if the app doesn't use multithreaded ddraw objects it can still
> -
>     * use multiple ddraw objects in multiple threads
> -
>     * Well, initialize it only once
> -
>     */
> -
>    if(counter == 0) InitializeCriticalSection(&listCrit);
> -

Isn't "counter" redundant?  When DllMain is called, the loader lock is 
held.  Furthermore, DllMain( ... DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH) is only called once 
per process, so counter should only ever be 1 after a DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH 
and 0 after a DETACH.

Mike

DDraw: Protect the ddraw object list

[Stefan Dösinger]

Am Freitag 06 Oktober 2006 08:42 schrieben Sie:
> Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> > @@ -851,6 +853,13 @@ DllMain(HINSTANCE hInstDLL,
> > -
> >    /* Initialize the ddraw object list critical section
> >
> > unconditionally +         * Even if the app doesn't use multithreaded
> > ddraw objects it can still +         * use multiple ddraw objects in
> > multiple threads
> > -
> >     * Well, initialize it only once
> > -
> >     */
> > -
> >    if(counter == 0) InitializeCriticalSection(&listCrit);
> > -
>
> Isn't "counter" redundant?  When DllMain is called, the loader lock is
> held.  Furthermore, DllMain( ... DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH) is only called once
> per process, so counter should only ever be 1 after a DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH
> and 0 after a DETACH.

Yes, I think it is redundant, as long as the ddraw.dll globals can't be shared 
accross processes. afair it is a leftover of when I used DLL_THREAD_ATTACH 
instead of PROCESS_ATTACH.

The counter is used at some other places too and is independent of this patch, 
so I think it is best to send another patch removing the counter.