[Touch-packages] [Bug 1511553] Re: Crash in queueRequest

2016-01-06 Thread Michi Henning
** Changed in: thumbnailer (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to thumbnailer in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1511553 Title: Crash in queueRequest

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1511553] Re: Crash in queueRequest

2015-11-09 Thread Michi Henning
** Changed in: thumbnailer (Ubuntu) Status: In Progress => Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to thumbnailer in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1511553 Title: Crash in queueRequest

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1511553] Re: Crash in queueRequest

2015-11-05 Thread Pete Woods
Well I'd also argue that level DB is a problem too, if it can't say "try acquire lock up to some timeout". If it can only do an immediate "lock could not be acquired" type failure, I guess it's not the end of the world to try and get the lock every n milliseconds up to the timeout instead. --

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1511553] Re: Crash in queueRequest

2015-11-05 Thread Michi Henning
Yes, fair point, although this functionality is really easy to layer on top so, arguably, not leveldb's job. But what is annoying is that, when the DB is locked, no unique error code is returned for the condition. Instead, the fact that the DB is locked gets lumped into the same status code that

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1511553] Re: Crash in queueRequest

2015-11-05 Thread Michi Henning
** Changed in: thumbnailer (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Michi Henning (michihenning) ** Changed in: thumbnailer (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => In Progress ** Branch linked: lp:~michihenning/thumbnailer/destructor-crash ** Branch linked:

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1511553] Re: Crash in queueRequest

2015-11-04 Thread Michi Henning
Thanks Pete! It's sort of a catch-22: if I shut down the dbus connection first, a new instance can be started while the old instance is still in the process of shutting down. And if I destroy the db instance first, requests can still be dispatched that now no longer have a valid target. The

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1511553] Re: Crash in queueRequest

2015-11-04 Thread Pete Woods
The way DBus handles this is very basic. It queues up the requests to the name. So you'll have to release the name before you close the database. I might suggest you could make your service wait to acquire a database lock up to a certain timeout on startup. This would mean that the second instance

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1511553] Re: Crash in queueRequest

2015-11-03 Thread Michi Henning
** Also affects: thumbnailer (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Changed in: thumbnailer (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => High ** No longer affects: thumbnailer -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1511553] Re: Crash in queueRequest

2015-11-03 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users. ** Changed in: thumbnailer (Ubuntu) Status: New => Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to thumbnailer in Ubuntu.