Bug#434418: new version
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 15:04:38 Michael Meskes wrote: I just uploaded a new version to incoming that also contains changes to the code fragment patched in this bug report. Albeit this patch is different than the one listed here. Could you please try whether the problem still exists with -8? Thanks. Michael In my opinion the problem still persists. All you did is change it from awaking a lot to awaking a little less (2x a second). My preferred solution would only wake up when needed. Are you absolutely positive that blocking infinite makes the the application not stop on SIGTERM? I really doubt it. Greetings, Joost -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#434418: new version
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:57:18 Joost Yervante Damad wrote: In my opinion the problem still persists. All you did is change it from awaking a lot to awaking a little less (2x a second). My preferred solution would only wake up when needed. Are you absolutely positive that blocking infinite makes the the application not stop on SIGTERM? I really doubt it. I agree that the correct solution is to not have the program wake up on a timer at all. Of course blocking forever prevents the program terminating, a quick test confirms this. Have you tried it? There is no reason to think that without some special handling the program will ever leave the while loop, even if it receives a signal. All the signal handler does is to set a flag. After it returns, control will simply pass back to whichever part of the dbus library is waiting for messages. There are a number of solutions to this problem (longjmp, dbus message, ignoring cleanup, ...), but I don't have the time to investigate them at the moment. Sorry... Bruce smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Bug#434418: new version
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 05:57:18PM +0200, Joost Yervante Damad wrote: In my opinion the problem still persists. All you did is change it from awaking a lot to awaking a little less (2x a second). My preferred solution would only wake up when needed. Are you absolutely positive that blocking The fact in the matter is that the whole kdebluetooth stuff is completely rewritten. All I'd like to have is a workable solution until the new code is finished. BTW we didn't change a single piece of code. This was an upstream change. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#434418: new version
I just uploaded a new version to incoming that also contains changes to the code fragment patched in this bug report. Albeit this patch is different than the one listed here. Could you please try whether the problem still exists with -8? Thanks. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
