On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 21:21 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 10:53 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > On Mi, 2012-01-18 at 16:55 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote: > > >> I've renamed my branch to concurrent-sync-sessions and rebased onto > > >> master. I'm now going through and making required changes to get tests > > >> to work. > > > > > > Note that I pushed another change onto a new "signal-handling" branch. > > > This affects you because syncevo-dbus-server will have to relay > > > suspend/abort requests. The helper process will have to deal with > > > signals similar to syncevo-local-sync helper in that branch. > > > > > > Do these changes make sense? > > > > > > > Yes, this looks fine. > > They are on their way towards master. Running one more test now. > > After looking into what it would take to have all backends react to > abort requests in a timely manner I have come to the conclusion that it > will be much simpler to just let the process running them die when > receiving a signal. Teaching libs with a synchronous API, like libneon > and the activesyncd client libraries, how to watch additional events > will be hard. > > For syncevo-local-sync I have implemented that and intend to merge it > soon, see for-master/signal-handling branch. > > Another patch modifies the syncevo-dbus-server. It's a step towards > gettting rid of SyncContext::checkForAbort/Suspend(). This is not > absolutely necessary at the moment and probably conflicts with your > server rewrite, so I intend to keep it on a branch for now.
After looking at the only regression reported by testing for the for-master/fork-local-sync branch it turned out that this final patch *is* needed: when not applied, TestLocalSync.testConcurrency fails because the Session.Abort() call has no effect while the local transport still waits for the child to start. session.cpp sets the SYNC_ABORT status and quits the main loop with the goal getting the SyncContext to react to the abort. Instead the fork/exec local transport restarts the loop and the sync session starts normally. This is partly a failure in the local transport (it would have to do a checkForAbort()), partly in the session (as mentioned in the commit message for my latest commit, it allowed a session to go from "aborted" to "running"). Either way, with the latest commit applied, the transport gets canceled as soon as Abort() is called and the session aborts as intended. Chris, I hope I'm not disrupting your work too much by merging the entire "signal-handling" into master. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
