Re: [evolution-patches] [calendar] fix for #60736

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

Will this actually make any difference?

The backtrace doesn't show the idle handler being recursively called, which I presume can't happen anyway.  The idle handler will implictly be removed automagically when it returns FALSE.  So explictly removing it is redundant.

If it is being called too often, perhaps the code should be checking if its already set an idle handler before setting the new one up?

Maybe async_signal_idle_cb is being called before async_auth_idle_cb and freeing its memory?

That code seems over-complicated for what it does and prone to issues :-/

On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 17:08 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 13:43 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > I think the problem is being caused by the idle callback being called
> > twice, so this probably fixes it.
>
> a better patch that stores the 2 different idle handler ID's in 2
> separated variables.
>
> cheers

--

Michael Zucchi <notzed ximian com> "born to die, live to work, it's all downhill from here" Novell's Evolution and Free Software Developer