----------------------------------------------------------- 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
