Wineserver semantics

[Alexandre Julliard]

Ryan Cumming <bodnar42 at bodnar42.dhs.org> writes:

>  What about having the file descriptor cache explictly invaildated? Like,
> the server keeps track of which file descriptors the various wine
> processes have cached, and if a process closes or performs some locking
> operation on a file descriptor, all the other wine proceses that are using 
> that file descriptor are explictly notified. This way processes can assume
> a file descriptor is valid unless told otherwise... would this be any
> better performance-wise? Does it fit in to the wineserver architecture
> nicely? ;)

Not really; you'd either need to callback into the client, which
creates a lot of synchronisation issues, or use a shared memory area
which implies locking. Either way doesn't really fit in the current
model. And as mentioned already we'll probably still need a server
call on each file access to implement file locking.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com