On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 09:18:30 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri vto...@univ-evry.fr
said:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Vincent Torri wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri
vto...@univ-evry.fr
said:
Secondly, this code is disabled, so it shouldn't affect anything right
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 11:49:59 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri vto...@univ-evry.fr
said:
so, as discomfitor said, last year you removed some piece of code saying
that it was too untested and the release being too close. There is the
same case here, and you don't remove it...
the other code was
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
On 07/28/2011 10:35 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
As I don't want the grumpy guy that don't help. You now have
ecore_main_loop_thread_safe_call that should be the base for your
patch. And I am still not convinced that we
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
On 07/29/2011 05:56 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
Then take that pseudo example :
Eina_Bool _timer_in_main_loop(void *data)
{
;
lock_data_mutex();
if (!data_was_deleted)
{
free(data);
On 07/29/2011 05:56 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
Then take that pseudo example :
Eina_Bool _timer_in_main_loop(void *data)
{
;
lock_data_mutex();
if (!data_was_deleted)
{
free(data);
}
data_was_deleted = Eina_True;
unlock_data_mutex();
return
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
On 07/28/2011 10:35 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
As I don't want the grumpy guy that don't help. You now have
ecore_main_loop_thread_safe_call that should be the base for your
patch. And I am still not convinced that we
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:17:14 +0900 Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com
said:
it's 9pm on a friday night... and i don't think i'm going to get stuck into
this right now. for now.. no one revert or do anything... i'll get to this
tomorrow after some good sleep. :)
Hi All,
This patch adds
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
On 07/28/2011 10:35 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
As I don't want the grumpy guy that don't help. You now have
ecore_main_loop_thread_safe_call that
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Rafael Antognolli wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
On 07/28/2011 10:35 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
As I don't want the grumpy guy that don't help.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:08:21 +0200 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr said:
OK... quick comments:
1. adding threadsafety isnt bad. it's no worse than the thread checks NO ONe
complained about. it's also optionally enabled, so i see no downside there.
2. yes - it's a pain in the butt to do, BUT if
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:31:53 +0200 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr said:
Before providing a benchmark, please revert your broken code and
provide a working solution based on my discussion with gustavo (using
Ecore_Pipe). Right know, and before doing benchmark, your solution
doesn't work in
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri vto...@univ-evry.fr
said:
Secondly, this code is disabled, so it shouldn't affect anything right now.
As I understand, it's normal in EFL development to add code that is
disabled, debug it, then enable it later when it works.
no.
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri vto...@univ-evry.fr
said:
Secondly, this code is disabled, so it shouldn't affect anything right now.
As I understand, it's normal in EFL development to add code that is
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Vincent Torri wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri
vto...@univ-evry.fr
said:
Secondly, this code is disabled, so it shouldn't affect anything right
now.
As I understand,
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:20:24 +0200 (CEST)
Vincent Torri vto...@univ-evry.fr wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Vincent Torri wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri
vto...@univ-evry.fr
said:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
On 07/27/2011 10:08 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
So it will most of the time work, but in some racy case, not. Sounds
to me like this doesn't change much from the current behaviour. I
agree, it will work more often than
On 07/28/2011 07:32 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
Maybe stable, but the rendered scene will not make sense and be highly
difficult to debug. So spank and point people to the right solution.
This is ecore, not evas. Adding timers from a thread makes sense to me.
I'm not proposing this as a solution
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Mike McCormack wrote:
On 07/28/2011 07:32 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
Maybe stable, but the rendered scene will not make sense and be highly
difficult to debug. So spank and point people to the right solution.
This is ecore, not evas. Adding timers from a thread makes
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:45:14 +1000 David Seikel onef...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:08:21 +0200 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
This patch adds some level of thread safety to ecore.
It
GRUMBL !!!
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
On 07/28/2011 07:32 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
Maybe stable, but the rendered scene will not make sense and be highly
difficult to debug. So spank and point people to the right solution.
This is ecore, not
As I don't want the grumpy guy that don't help. You now have
ecore_main_loop_thread_safe_call that should be the base for your
patch. And I am still not convinced that we need more than that.
People should just use that function when they are doing thread stuff
and we should advertise it in our
On 07/28/2011 08:18 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
I have already added code to print warnings. It helps, but the response is
usually, but why isn't EFL thread safe?
tell them to read the preamble there :
http://docs.enlightenment.org/auto/ecore/Ecore_Main_Loop_Page.html
Well, after repeating
On 07/28/2011 09:31 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
Before providing a benchmark, please revert your broken code and
provide a working solution based on my discussion with gustavo (using
Ecore_Pipe). Right know, and before doing benchmark, your solution
doesn't work in all case and that's a no go for
On 07/28/2011 10:35 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
As I don't want the grumpy guy that don't help. You now have
ecore_main_loop_thread_safe_call that should be the base for your
patch. And I am still not convinced that we need more than that.
People should just use that function when they are doing
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Mike McCormack wrote:
On 07/28/2011 09:31 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
Before providing a benchmark, please revert your broken code and
provide a working solution based on my discussion with gustavo (using
Ecore_Pipe). Right know, and before doing benchmark, your solution
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
This patch adds some level of thread safety to ecore.
It does not add thread awareness (i.e. adding a timer from a thread will not
wake a sleeping main loop).
So it will most of the time work, but in some racy
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
This patch adds some level of thread safety to ecore.
It does not add thread awareness (i.e. adding a timer from a thread will not
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:08:21 +0200 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
This patch adds some level of thread safety to ecore.
It does not add thread awareness (i.e. adding a timer from a thread
will not wake
On 07/27/2011 10:08 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
So it will most of the time work, but in some racy case, not. Sounds
to me like this doesn't change much from the current behaviour. I
agree, it will work more often than previously, but still hidding bug
until it's to late.
It is a change it goal.
29 matches
Mail list logo
