----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125300/#review85628 -----------------------------------------------------------
Recursive mutexes are more costly and a symptom of bad programming. I'd much rather that we fix the recursive locking. Any chance for a unittest? ;) - David Faure On Sept. 18, 2015, 4:38 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125300/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 18, 2015, 4:38 p.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Frameworks. > > > Bugs: 350890 > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=350890 > > > Repository: kio > > > Description > ------- > > We had a non-recursive mutex and we kept requesting it. Eventually it locked > because we were locking the mutex when already locked. > > An alternative fix could be to rearrange the code and release it sooner, but > it doesn't seem worth it. (although I had to remove 2 asserts and I feel > uneasy about it). > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/core/kprotocolmanager.cpp 294ebdf > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125300/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Tests pass, cannot reproduce the attached bug anymore. > > > Thanks, > > Aleix Pol Gonzalez > >
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
