-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 307
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Pa_Initialize(): Guard against recursive calls. #794
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e03753c
Pa_Initalze(): Guard against recursive calls.
daschuer a897650
Add a debug statement when re-enter Pa_Initalize()
daschuer 079943e
Add link to issue fixed by the previous commits
daschuer 9885ecc
Don't use C99 stdbool.h
daschuer 9995043
Use new error code paCanNotInitializeRecursively
daschuer 8faf0f6
Fix error text for paCanNotInitializeRecursively
RossBencina File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should this be marked volatile to prevent the compiler from doing threading unsafe optimizations here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My original version had this volatile due to the assumption that this will prevent the compiler form reordering.
However this assumption is not guaranteed and fortunately also not necessary, because the compiler cannot move code across external function calls like
InitializeHostApis()
in our case.Another aspect is thread safety. The volatile keyword can be part of the solution but, we need also atomic test_and_set() which is not available in C89. Since thread safety is not a requirement here and also not build in any other call the using code is responsible anyway and it is no point in this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that initialization and shutdown are rare enough that using a mutex here to ensure thread safety would be okay. @RossBencina What do you say?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A mutex will create a deadlock in the recursive case.
IMHO this PR is good enough, protecting Portaudio in concurrent situation is not required for the original problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a good discussion of thread safety. But currently PortAudio is not thread safe. This fix prevents a crash caused by a stack overflow. It does not solve the thread safety issue but it is a step in the right direction. We can consider full thread safety in a later PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a reasonable point. However, PortAudio is a single threaded API, and this patch is intended to prevent recursion on a single thread. According to our API semantics
Pa_Initialize()
may not be called concurrently on two threads, and even ourinitializationCount_
mechanism is not thread-safe. Furthermore, we currently have no portable mutex infrastructure so adding a mutex here is a non-trivial change.So my vote would be to merge this as-is and worry about whether initialize/terminate, or indeed the whole API, should be made thread-safe as a separate issue.