[PATCH v7 1/2] ntdll/socket: Implement exclusive flag for IOCTL_AFD_POLL.

[Guillaume Charifi-Hoareau]

> On 9/6/21 12:47 PM, Guillaume Charifi wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Guillaume Charifi <guillaume.charifi at sfr.fr>
> > ---
> >   dlls/ntdll/unix/socket.c |  6 ++---
> >   include/wine/afd.h       |  2 +-
> >   server/protocol.def      |  1 +
> >   server/sock.c            | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >   4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> Based on your description [1], it seems to me like it'd be easier just 
> to save the "main" poll request as a poll_req field in the relevant 
> socket. Then your poll_handle_exclusive() can pretty much do exactly 
> what you describe in that mail:
> 
> if (sock->main_poll && sock->main_poll->exclusive && req->exclusive)
>      // terminate it
> if (!sock->main_poll)
>      sock->main_poll = req;
> 
> Of course the problem is, we can't do this yet, because cancel_async can 
> terminate the async behind our back. I wrote [2] for a different 
> purpose, but if accepted, it'd help here as well.


Yeah, I didn't do it because I wasn't sure the referenced handles would still be valid at the 
time the function would get called...
This would definitely help.


> 
> In lieu of [2], though, it'd at least be nice to see a helper function 
> like "get_main_poll", to avoid that goto and boolean variable.


Agreed.


> 
> I don't like the name "main_poll", but I'm hard-pressed to come up with 
> something better. "exclusive_poll" perhaps, but it's not guaranteed to 
> actually be exclusive...


Me neither, what do you think of "pinned_poll"?


> 
> [1] https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2021-September/194463.html
> 
> [2] https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/213505
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20210907/4525787c/attachment.htm>