[compiz] [PATCH] Remove timeout callback

[Mike Dransfield]

Mike Dransfield wrote:
> David Reveman wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 16:14 +0100, Mike Dransfield wrote:
>>  
>>> David Reveman wrote:
>>>    
>>>> On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:28 +0100, Mike Dransfield wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>> While working on the python plugin, I realised that the
>>>>> timeout system does not allow for notification when a timeout
>>>>> is removed.  This has been fine up until now because he closures
>>>>> never needed to be cleaned up.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the python plugin, I pass through a custom structure which
>>>>> needs to be cleaned up if the timeout is removed.  This is almost
>>>>> certainly the cause of some horrible memory leaks for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> The attached patch is a simple solution to the problem.  I think
>>>>> it should be good enough for most situations.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could maintain some sort of lookup inside my plugin, but I think
>>>>> other plugins would benefit from this.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is OK to go in or were there any comments?
>>>>>             
>>>> Timeouts are only removed as a result of the timeout call-back 
>>>> function
>>>> returning FALSE. So unless I'm missing something, all cleanup can be
>>>> done in the regular call-back function before returning FALSE.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> The pyplane (and the original plane) use a timeout which gets
>>> canceled if the user quickly switches back to another viewport.
>>> It is not a problem for plane because the closure is a CompScreen
>>> which does not need to be cleaned up.
>>>
>>> The plugins call compRemoveTimeout to stop it.  I'm not sure if this
>>> is right in this case, but it seems that it would be useful to stop a
>>> timeout before it expires, and it makes it easy to clean up the closure
>>> without having to maintain a lookup table of handles to closures.
>>>     
>>
>> OK, I see.
>> 1. compRemoveTimeout can return the closure pointer.
>>
>> 2. We add a function like this:
>>
>> void *
>> compTimeoutGetUserData (CompTimeoutHandle handle);
>>
>> 3. We add a remove call-back function (your patch).
>>
>>
>> I'm in favor of solution 1, it's simple and efficient. What do you
>> think?
>>   
>
> Yes, number 1 sounds like a better solution.
>
> Ill prepare some patches for that.  Should I also increase the
> ABIVERSION when I do this?

Attached is the diff for that.

>
>> - David
>>
>>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> compiz mailing list
> compiz at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/compiz
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: return-closure.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 882 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/compiz/attachments/20070423/cd00cf39/return-closure.bin