[merge][#109520] gc of LockableFiles should not warn or unlock

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 18:52 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> 
> >
> >  I'm hesitant to merge this; I would rather get the tests fixed
> using my
> >  lower level stuff; and *if* that isn't sufficient then look at this
> >  again.
> 
> As I said in the original post, it has a broader impact than just in
> the test suite.  A number of bugs either complain about this happening
> in particular cases, or the warning confuses the bug report.  When it
> occurs in the field it does not seem very helpful in isolating the
> bug.

Agreed.

> Now that we have a deterministic check during the test suite there
> seems even less reason to keep the gc warning.

Except that its at a different level: I've hooked in at the very lowest
level; possibly I should have hooked into LockableFiles instead; then
this would be a clear replacement for the gc warning. I went for the low
level locks rather than LockableFiles, because I understood you want to
reduce the dependence/use of lockable files.

> I'm not sure what the metric would be for "sufficient".

Providing enough information to actually clean everything up easily :P.

> (Robert said something about a long-running server possibly wanting to
> debug leaked locks - I would think that there too it probably should
> do something more like what the test suite does.)

Agreed here too - perhaps doing an analagous thing to what I did but for
LockableFiles should be done soon ?

-Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080408/ac219d50/attachment.pgp