[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Review Request: Make KDirWatch inotify threaded.
From:       "Sebastian Sauer" <mail () dipe ! org>
Date:       2009-10-25 21:18:32
Message-ID: 20091025211832.5163.70768 () localhost
[Download RAW message or body]



> On 2009-10-24 20:31:27, Michael Pyne wrote:
> > /trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kio/kio/kdirwatch.cpp, line 205
> > <http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1963/diff/2/?file=13278#file13278line205>
> > 
> > Was this not necessary anywhere?  I'd still set the close-on-exec flag even if \
> > it's a bad idea to using forking in a multi-threaded program (although I'd set \
> > this flag from the thread using inotify instead of here).

That line is still there. See kdirwatch.cpp line 206.


> On 2009-10-24 20:31:27, Michael Pyne wrote:
> > /trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kio/kio/kdirwatch.cpp, line 1724
> > <http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1963/diff/2/?file=13278#file13278line1724>
> > 
> > Why do we have #ifdef HAVE_SYS_INOTIFY_H twice here, why not merge them?

Fixed.


> On 2009-10-24 20:31:27, Michael Pyne wrote:
> > /trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kio/kio/kdirwatch_p.h, line 145
> > <http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1963/diff/2/?file=13279#file13279line145>
> > 
> > I think you accidentally left useless spaces here.

Fixed.


> On 2009-10-24 20:31:27, Michael Pyne wrote:
> > /trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kio/kio/kdirwatch_p.h, line 279
> > <http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1963/diff/2/?file=13279#file13279line279>
> > 
> > This portion seems inconsistent with the rest of the file's coding style (esp. \
> > spacing). 
> > On the other hand it looks more in line with the kdelibs coding style. \
> > (http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Kdelibs_Coding_Style) 
> > Assuming the change gets tested/committed can you also update the coding style of \
> > the affected files to be in line with the kdelibs coding style?

Spacing?


- Sebastian


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1963/#review2799
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2009-10-24 14:59:32, Sebastian Sauer wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1963/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2009-10-24 14:59:32)
> 
> 
> Review request for kdelibs.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Problem;
> Under heavy hd load (e.g. compiling KDE) KDirWatch may freeze for fractions of \
> seconds or even longer. 
> Solution;
> Do the same QFileSystemWatcher (qt/src/corelib/io/qfilesystemwatcher_inotify.cpp) \
> does and make the QSocketNotifier+inotifyEventReceived logic threaded. 
> Warning;
> This *needs* review.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
> /trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kio/kio/kdirwatch.cpp 1038809 
> /trunk/KDE/kdelibs/kio/kio/kdirwatch_p.h 1038809 
> 
> Diff: http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/1963/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> kdelibs/kio/tests/kdirwatch, kdelibs/kio/tests/kdirwatch_gui
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]