<#part sign=pgpmime> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:31:52 -0800, Jamey Sharp <ja...@minilop.net> wrote:
> Reviewed-by: Jamey Sharp <ja...@minilop.net> Thanks! > Although, in "Restore Xlib semantics", it would be nice if you'd fix > up the "It appears that classic Xlib respected user locks" comment. I > think it suffices to delete the final sentence, "So we'll choose to > let the thread that got in first consume events, despite the later > thread's user locks." something like: - * deadlock. So we'll choose to let the thread - * that got in first consume events, despite the - * later thread's user locks. */ + * deadlock. So we let the thread got in first read + * events, then signal other waiting threads and go + * back to check for a user lock */ > Thanks for the careful review and detailed summary! Xlib locking code is hard. Let's go rocketing! -- keith.pack...@intel.com _______________________________________________ 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
