> -Original Message-
> From: Alexandre Julliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 November 2003 00:45
> To: Robert Shearman
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: I/O Completion Ports Implementation
>
> "Robert Shearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> write
"Robert Shearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In remove_io_completion:
>
> +port->satisfied = 0; /* don't abandon wait on the port */
> +select_on(1, req->cookie, &req->handle, SELECT_TIMEOUT,
> &req->timeout);
> +port->satisfied = 1; /* abandon any waits on the port imme
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexandre Julliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 November 2003 00:06
> To: Robert Shearman
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: I/O Completion Ports Implementation
>
>
> "Robert Shearman" <[EMAIL PROTE
"Robert Shearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> WaitForSingleObject(hIoCompletion, INFINITE) returns straight away with
> WAIT_OBJECT_0 on Windows. Using it would break this behaviour (which of
> course any sane apps would not depend on).
I must be missing something, but I don't see how your code
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexandre Julliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 11 November 2003 21:03
> To: Robert Shearman
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: I/O Completion Ports Implementation
>
> Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This has been hanging around in my tree for a while. This is useful for RPC
> and for eventually implementing QueueUserWorkItem.
>
> Changelog:
> Implement I/O completion ports
You should use the normal waiting mechanisms, instead of creating a
new t
