Thanks for the suggestions. Given that they are on an academic deadline and they have already implemented the feature using straight inotify and a monitor thread, I'd favor a lesser refactoring with just removing the signals.
Cheers, David On 21/11/2018 22:06, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:22:38AM -0500, Nathan Froyd wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:45 AM David Teller <dtel...@mozilla.com> wrote: >>> What is our policy on using Unix signals on Firefox? I am currently >>> reviewing a patch by external contributors that involves inotify's >>> signal API, and I assume it's a bad idea, but I'd like to ask around >>> first before sending them back to the drawing board. >> >> I don't think we have a policy, per se; certainly we already have uses >> of signals in the JS engine's wasm implementation and the Gecko >> profiler. But in those cases, signals are basically the only way to >> do what we want. If there were alternative ways to accomplish those >> tasks besides signals, I think we would have avoided signals. >> >> inotify looks like it has a file descriptor-based interface which >> seems perfectly usable. Not being familiar with inotify beyond >> reading http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/inotify.7.html, is there >> a reason to prefer the signal interface versus the file descriptor >> interface? We use the standard gio/gtk event loop, so hooking up the >> returned file descriptor from inotify_init should not be onerous. >> widget/gtk/nsAppShell.cpp even contains some code to crib from: >> >> https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/widget/gtk/nsAppShell.cpp#275-281 > > I'd go one step further. We use Gio from libglib, is there a reason not > to use the GFileMonitor API, which wraps inotify? > > https://developer.gnome.org/gio/stable/GFileMonitor.html > > Mike > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform