X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Schmidt, Oliver" To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:22:52 +0100 Subject: Re: Cygwin 1.7: Concurrency Issue with Shared State Initialization Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Hi, >>> I'll test the snapshot asap! >>The final patch is from cgf. It's probably more performant since it >>drops the requirement for an additional spinlock. >The snapshot contains try #3 on getting the locking right. Thank you both for clarifying. I was already aware of that by browsing through the CVS commits but my statement above was far from clear on that :-( >>> I see we were thinking along the same lines ;-) >But, the spinlock approach was nothing new. We use that technique in >several places in Cygwin. @Christopher: Certainly! My statement above was solely referring to Corinna combining the very same two APIs in the very same way I had in mind. As your 'try #3' shows there are other ways to get this job done. In general the whole idea of me making a proposal for a possible=20 implementation was only triggered by you calling the issue "tricky". As a non-native speaker it's sometimes difficult to be not unintentionally offensive... Regards, Oliver -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple