Quoting Emil Velikov (2015-03-26 19:24:21)
On 26 March 2015 at 14:50, Chad Versace chad.vers...@intel.com wrote:
Quoting Emil Velikov (2015-03-25 07:30:00)
Indeed you're bang on the spot. id_counter should be locked throughout
a series of display_{connect, disconnect}, thus we should push
Quoting Emil Velikov (2015-03-25 07:30:00)
On 24 March 2015 at 17:37, Jose Fonseca jfons...@vmware.com wrote:
Is wcore_display_teardown called only once, or when destroying each display?
If the latter, then it's not safe to call `mtx_destroy(mutex)` on
`wcore_display_teardown`. Otherwise
On 26/03/15 14:50, Chad Versace wrote:
Quoting Emil Velikov (2015-03-25 07:30:00)
On 24 March 2015 at 17:37, Jose Fonseca jfons...@vmware.com wrote:
Is wcore_display_teardown called only once, or when destroying each display?
If the latter, then it's not safe to call `mtx_destroy(mutex)` on
C11 does not specify a static initializer, based on the idea that the
a mutex will be platform and/or implementation dependent. As such the
alternative solution is to initialize the mutex with call_once/mtx_init.
This will allow us to remove the transition hack, and in due time move
to the
4 matches
Mail list logo
