On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:39:37 -0800 Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Akira TAGOH <akira@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > As I mentioned in other mail, it was needed to avoid the races. to get > > rid of it completely, the logic of the cache updates may needs to be > > changed because keeping the directory information into the memory a > > long time causes that issue easily when recursively traversing > > directories. > > As long as the timestamp written to the cache is the directory change > time when the scanning starts, then applications starting after that > will re-scan the directory if it was changed while the first application > was scanning. I guess I don't see how this (which is what I think the > code does) could cause a race? Wouldn't it need to be the timestamp that was used in the very first call to FcCacheTimeValid? But it's not implemented like that, is it? -- Worringer Str 31 Duesseldorf 40211 DE home: <rs@xxxxxxxx> +49-179-2981632 icq 16845346 work: <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
