🚀 go-pugleaf

SubZero wrote:

>which does not work for no obvious reason. It simply raises the exception 
>when there is no reason!

What exception would that be?

Why would you want to use _both_ mutex and CriticalSection ?

I understand you want a timeout, so you use mutex, but that should be
enough.

I think it would be better to have a global handle for the mutex so
you aren't constantly creating and opening the mutex (which you don't
use CloseHandle on, so are leaking resources).

Your lockCriticalSection() calls CreateMutex() with true, which is not
correct for this. Think what happens if 2 threads (or applications)
try to lock at the same time.  "Create with ownership" should fail for
one of them.

Furthermore:
<help>
The thread that owns a mutex can specify the same mutex in repeated
wait function calls without blocking its execution. Typically, you
would not wait repeatedly for the same mutex, but this mechanism
prevents a thread from deadlocking itself while waiting for a mutex
that it already owns. However, to release its ownership, the thread
must call ReleaseMutex once for each time that the mutex satisfied a
wait. 
</help>
What this means is your CreateMutex(true) satisfies one "ownership",
and the wait() satisfies a second, but you only release once.

IMO you should CreateMutex(false) in application startup, with
CloseHandle() at shutdown.
Then the Lock() and and Release() would just use the global mutex
handle.
BTW, since your code should not reach releaseLock() without having
aquired a lock, releaseLock() should not wait(), but simply
ReleaseMutex().