[Nepomuk] Review Request: Thread Safety in the IndexScheduler

[Sebastian Trueg]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102251/#review5582
-----------------------------------------------------------



nepomuk/services/strigi/indexscheduler.cpp
<http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102251/#comment4974>

    I think it would be cleaner to use
    emit indexingFile(currentFile()) instead and unlock the mutex before. That way clients can call currentFile and friends from slots connected to the indexingFile signal.



nepomuk/services/strigi/indexscheduler.cpp
<http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102251/#comment4975>

    This can't be right...


- Sebastian


On Aug. 10, 2011, 10:54 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102251/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 10, 2011, 10:54 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Nepomuk and Sebastian Trueg.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Many of the variables need to be accessed in IndexScheduler need to be protected with a mutex.
> 
> I think it's better to use multiple mutexes instead of one.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug 279347.
>     http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279347
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   nepomuk/services/strigi/indexscheduler.h 4c83d04a39c644aa62b59c8ec844e0db900f3c6d 
>   nepomuk/services/strigi/indexscheduler.cpp 7fd4dcb5a8e33362e8005406932b12176a804795 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102251/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Nope. Don't know how to test this.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vishesh
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/nepomuk/attachments/20110810/1fbcd045/attachment-0001.html>