pulseaudio/src/pulsecore/semaphore-osx.c

95 lines
2.3 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
/***
This file is part of PulseAudio.
Copyright 2006 Lennart Poettering
Copyright 2013 Albert Zeyer
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
PulseAudio is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published
by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License,
or (at your option) any later version.
PulseAudio is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
along with PulseAudio; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307
USA.
***/
#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
#include <config.h>
#endif
#include <stdio.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
#include <pulse/xmalloc.h>
#include <pulsecore/macro.h>
#include <pulsecore/atomic.h>
#include <pulsecore/core-util.h>
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
#include "semaphore.h"
/* OSX doesn't support unnamed semaphores (via sem_init).
* Thus, we use a counter to give them enumerated names. */
static pa_atomic_t id_counter = PA_ATOMIC_INIT(0);
struct pa_semaphore {
sem_t *sem;
int id;
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
};
static char *sem_name(char *fn, size_t l, int id) {
pa_snprintf(fn, l, "/pulse-sem-%u-%u", getpid(), id);
return fn;
}
pa_semaphore *pa_semaphore_new(unsigned value) {
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
pa_semaphore *s;
char fn[32];
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1);
s->id = pa_atomic_inc(&id_counter);
sem_name(fn, sizeof(fn), s->id);
sem_unlink(fn); /* in case an old stale semaphore is left around */
pa_assert_se(s->sem = sem_open(fn, O_CREAT|O_EXCL, 0700, value));
pa_assert(s->sem != SEM_FAILED);
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
return s;
}
void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) {
char fn[32];
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
pa_assert(s);
pa_assert_se(sem_close(s->sem) == 0);
sem_name(fn, sizeof(fn), s->id);
pa_assert_se(sem_unlink(fn) == 0);
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
pa_xfree(s);
}
void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) {
pa_assert(s);
pa_assert_se(sem_post(s->sem) == 0);
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
}
void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) {
int ret;
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
pa_assert(s);
do {
ret = sem_wait(s->sem);
} while (ret < 0 && errno == EINTR);
pa_assert(ret == 0);
Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57:04PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 16.09.09 15:15, Daniel Mack (daniel@caiaq.de) wrote: > > > + s = pa_xnew(pa_semaphore, 1); > > + MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &(s->sema)); > > + pa_assert(s->sema != 0); > > Hmm, I'd prefer if the ret val of MPCreateSemaphore() would be checked > here. > > Also I find it a bit weird checking for s->sema, though not > initializing it to 0 in the beginning. If the call actually failed, > then the assert will check uninitialized memory. Also, comparing > pointers with 0 sucks. That should be NULL. > > Given that this can not realisitically fail, only in OOM or OOM-like > situations in which case we abort anyway it mght be enough just writing: > > pa_assert_se(MPCreateSemaphore(UINT_MAX, value, &s->sema) == 0); > > (Assuming that success is signalled by retval == 0 on MacOSX) > > > +void pa_semaphore_free(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPDeleteSemaphore(s->sema); > > Same here. > > > + pa_xfree(s); > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_post(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + MPSignalSemaphore(s->sema); > > And here. > > > +} > > + > > +void pa_semaphore_wait(pa_semaphore *s) { > > + pa_assert(s); > > + /* should probably check return value (-ve is error), noErr is ok. */ > > + MPWaitOnSemaphore(s->sema, kDurationForever); > > And here. Ok, done. See the patch below. Daniel >From 26df2fbae6d9215a3ae084876fb5f79e4d9cf4f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kim Lester <kim@dfusion.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Mac OS X: add semaphore implementation
2009-10-19 12:48:00 +02:00
}