On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:11:41 +0900
Takashi Yano wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 09:07:48 +0900
> Takashi Yano wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 19:50:23 +0900
> > Takashi Yano wrote:
> > 
> > > @@ -796,7 +792,8 @@ pipe_cleanup (select_record *, select_stuff *stuff)
> > >        pi->stop_thread = true;
> > >        SetEvent (pi->bye);
> >          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > This is not correct. SetEvent() wakes-up one of thread_pipe()s,
> > but it may be other thread than one which should be stopped.
> > 
> > >        pi->thread->detach ();
> > > -      CloseHandle (pi->bye);
> > > +      if (me->fh->get_select_evt () == NULL)
> > > +	CloseHandle (pi->bye);
> > >      }
> > >    delete pi;
> > >    stuff->device_specific_pipe = NULL;
> > 
> > I think it also should be
> > > +    for (ULONG i = 0; i < get_obj_handle_count (select_evt); i++)
> > > +      SetEvent (select_evt);
> > 
> > Actually I want to use PulseEvent() here if it is not **UNRELIABLE**.
> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/devtest/28648-pulseevent-is-an-unreliable-function
> > 
> > Does using semaphore object instead of event, and releasing
> > resources equal to the number of handles make sense?
> 
> No it does not. One thread may consume semaphore multiple times....

I wrote a simple test program which counts wake-up 1000 times in 100
threads, and confirmed that semaphore method works as expected as well
as PulseEvent(). All 100000 (100*1000) wake-up were counted without
miscount.

Therefore, patch attached should work.

-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi.yano@nifty.ne.jp>