Unlocking device(s) on process exit/crash

[David Zeuthen]

On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 13:47 -0400, Clark, Chris M wrote:
> Thanks for everyone's responses to my mail. The problem occurs for 
> both Python exceptions and the "kill -9" scenario.
> 
> It sounds like I'm suposed to deal with the exceptions (which I 
> already do with a "finally" block which performs the Unlock). The 
> example I posted had a simplistic "catch" way of dealing this this 
> (but it was disabled for demo purposes).
> 
> For the "kill -9" scenario it sounds like I've hit a bug, that 
> none else is seeing (thank you to David Zeuthen for testing a 
> slightly different combination that indicated there may a problem 
> with the Ubuntu/0.23 dbus bindings). I'll log a report with Ubuntu 
> bug tracker and see how things go from them.

Looking at the NEWS file for D-BUS 0.23 one change from 0.22 is this

 - use SerivceOwnerChanges signal instead of ServiceCreated and
   ServiceDeleted

so I think we need a patch for hal 0.4.x such that we look for
"SerivceOwnerChanged" signals instead of "ServiceCreated" and
"ServiceDeleted" but only if we use D-BUS >= 0.23. Anyone care to cook
up such a patch? :-)

Cheers,
David


_______________________________________________
hal mailing list
hal at lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal