On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 19:18:33 +0900 Ryo Munakata <ryomnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:04:23 +0200 > Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > static void > > > diff --git a/xwayland/launcher.c b/xwayland/launcher.c > > > index df2efd2..63a1dea 100644 > > > --- a/xwayland/launcher.c > > > +++ b/xwayland/launcher.c > > > @@ -338,6 +338,8 @@ weston_xserver_destroy(struct wl_listener *l, void > > > *data) > > > if (!wxs) > > > return; > > > > > > + wl_event_source_remove(wxs->sigusr1_source); > > > + > > > if (wxs->loop) > > > weston_xserver_shutdown(wxs); > > > > > > > This looks suspicious. There already is: > > xwayland/launcher.c=39=handle_sigusr1(int signal_number, void *data) > > xwayland/launcher.c:47: wl_event_source_remove(wxs->sigusr1_source); > > > > Doesn't this lead to double-remove? > > Ahh, yes, you are right. > I thought I saw valgrind reported this as a memory leak. > Now I tested it with valgrind and this part seems to be my mistake. Well, the leak could happen in the case where the Xwayland process never sends a SIGUSR1 to us. So ideally you'd track if you need to clean up or not. It's corner case from a failure path. Thanks, pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
