On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 02:55:11PM +0200, Uli Schlachter wrote: > On 10.05.2014 00:21, otay...@redhat.com wrote: > > From: "Owen W. Taylor" <otay...@fishsoup.net> > > > > When XCB owns the X socket, dpy->request is not updated, so > > NextRequest() and XNextRequest() return the wrong value. There's > > nothing we can do to fix NextRequest() while retaining ABI compat, > > but change XNextRequest() to grab the socket back from XCB, > > updating dpy->request. > > > > Signed-off-by: Owen W. Taylor <otay...@fishsoup.net> > > Reviewed-by: Uli Schlachter <psyc...@znc.in> > > (And this also makes this function thread safe on 32bit archs were reading a > 64bit value isn't atomic)
I don't have any issues with the patch, aside from possibly making people think that using NextRequest is a good idea. :-) But this comment isn't true; neither NextRequest nor XNextRequest can ever be made thread-safe in any implementation, as you could always race with another thread that's issuing a request, which invalidates NextRequest's post-conditions. Jamey
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
