* [PATCH v3] qt4: Fix QT4 applications spamming "QWSLock::down(): Invalid argument"
2015-01-06 11:10 ` Burton, Ross
@ 2015-01-06 11:46 ` Mike Looijmans
2015-01-06 11:47 ` [PATCH] " Mike Looijmans
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mike Looijmans @ 2015-01-06 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core; +Cc: Mike Looijmans
If you run a QT server application, and a client in a separate process, it will
spam the log with "QWSLock::down(): Invalid argument" messages because of an old
bug in the locking code. There's a patch on the net that fixes it, which I manually
adapted by removing the commented-out debug statements.
We have been using this patch for about half a year without problems, and the QT people
apparently don't care about the bug, for which this solution has been posted in 2012.
Including this into OE core will at least save other people the trouble of having to find
and apply it for themselves.
Signed-off-by: Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans@topic.nl>
---
v3: Added my signoff, upstream-status and link to original patch to the patch
meta/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-4.8.6.inc | 1 +
.../Fix-QWSLock-invalid-argument-logs.patch | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 99 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 meta/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-4.8.6/Fix-QWSLock-invalid-argument-logs.patch
diff --git a/meta/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-4.8.6.inc b/meta/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-4.8.6.inc
index 074e82d..a2c0688 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-4.8.6.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-4.8.6.inc
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ SRC_URI = "http://download.qt-project.org/official_releases/qt/4.8/${PV}/qt-ever
file://0030-aarch64_arm64_qatomic_support.patch \
file://0031-aarch64_arm64_mkspecs.patch \
file://0032-aarch64_add_header.patch \
+ file://Fix-QWSLock-invalid-argument-logs.patch \
file://g++.conf \
file://linux.conf \
"
diff --git a/meta/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-4.8.6/Fix-QWSLock-invalid-argument-logs.patch b/meta/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-4.8.6/Fix-QWSLock-invalid-argument-logs.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1f5f00f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-qt/qt4/qt4-4.8.6/Fix-QWSLock-invalid-argument-logs.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+From 52c34001bad85c3032618070b1d6b2a3c6880715 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Neil Jerram <n...@ossau.homelinux.net>
+Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 08:18:32 +0000
+Subject: [PATCH] Fix QWSLock "invalid argument" logs
+
+There was no known actual problem associated with these logs, but they
+were spamming the log, so I thought it worth trying to understand and
+fix them.
+
+The confusion is that there are two different ways of creating QWSLock
+objects. "QWSLock()" creates an object that creates a new set of
+semaphores, whereas "QWSLock(id)" creates an object that aliases the
+existing set of semaphores with ID id. What seems to happen is that
+each application creates a semaphore set scoped to that
+application (QWSDisplay::Data::clientLock in qapplication_qws.cpp),
+then this semaphore set is passed by complex means to
+places (QWSClientPrivate and QWSMemorySurface) that use the semaphores
+for a short period and then delete their QWSLock objects.
+
+The problem was that the QWSLock destructor always destroyed the
+semaphore set, even when that QWSLock hadn't create the semaphores
+itself, hence making the semaphores invalid for other QWSLock objects
+still referencing the same set.
+
+Clearly a QWSLock object shouldn't destroy the semaphore set if it
+didn't create it itself, and that is confirmed by the fact that one of
+the implementations inside QWSLock already implements this logic, with
+the 'owned' flag. The fix is to implement this for the #ifndef
+QT_POSIX_IPC case - which is what is used in QtMoko - just as is
+already implemented for the #ifdef QT_POSIX_IPC case.
+
+Original patch can be found here:
+ http://www.mail-archive.com/community@lists.openmoko.org/msg65512.html
+
+Upstream-Status: Submitted
+
+Signed-off-by: Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans@topic.nl>
+ (Removed the commented-out debug statements from the original patch.)
+
+---
+
+diff --git a/src/gui/embedded/qwslock.cpp b/src/gui/embedded/qwslock.cpp
+index 9914a24..1055785 100644
+--- a/src/gui/embedded/qwslock.cpp
++++ b/src/gui/embedded/qwslock.cpp
+@@ -83,9 +83,12 @@ QWSLock::QWSLock(int id) : semId(id)
+ QWSSignalHandler::instance()->addWSLock(this);
+ #endif
+
++ owned = false;
++
+ #ifndef QT_POSIX_IPC
+ if (semId == -1) {
+ semId = semget(IPC_PRIVATE, 3, IPC_CREAT | 0666);
++ owned = true;
+ if (semId == -1) {
+ perror("QWSLock::QWSLock");
+ qFatal("Unable to create semaphore");
+@@ -100,7 +104,6 @@ QWSLock::QWSLock(int id) : semId(id)
+ }
+ #else
+ sems[0] = sems[1] = sems[2] = SEM_FAILED;
+- owned = false;
+
+ if (semId == -1) {
+ // ### generate really unique IDs
+@@ -134,9 +137,11 @@ QWSLock::~QWSLock()
+
+ if (semId != -1) {
+ #ifndef QT_POSIX_IPC
+- qt_semun semval;
+- semval.val = 0;
+- semctl(semId, 0, IPC_RMID, semval);
++ if (owned) {
++ qt_semun semval;
++ semval.val = 0;
++ semctl(semId, 0, IPC_RMID, semval);
++ }
+ semId = -1;
+ #else
+ // emulate the SEM_UNDO behavior for the BackingStore lock
+diff --git a/src/gui/embedded/qwslock_p.h b/src/gui/embedded/qwslock_p.h
+index d324e4f..d867d20 100644
+--- a/src/gui/embedded/qwslock_p.h
++++ b/src/gui/embedded/qwslock_p.h
+@@ -86,8 +86,8 @@ private:
+ int lockCount[2];
+ #ifdef QT_POSIX_IPC
+ sem_t *sems[3];
+- bool owned;
+ #endif
++ bool owned;
+ };
+
+ QT_END_NAMESPACE
+
+--
+1.7.10.4
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] qt4: Fix QT4 applications spamming "QWSLock::down(): Invalid argument"
2015-01-06 11:10 ` Burton, Ross
2015-01-06 11:46 ` [PATCH v3] " Mike Looijmans
@ 2015-01-06 11:47 ` Mike Looijmans
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mike Looijmans @ 2015-01-06 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Burton, Ross; +Cc: OE-core
Ok, I'll add some extra information to the patch and submit a v3.
M.
On 01/06/2015 12:10 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>
> On 6 January 2015 at 10:34, Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans@topic.nl
> <mailto:mike.looijmans@topic.nl>> wrote:
>
> We have been using this patch for about half a year without problems, and
> the QT people
> apparently don't care about the bug, hence there's no upstream status.
> Including this
> into OE core will at least save other people the trouble of having to find
> and apply
> it for themselves.
>
>
> You still need an upstream-status - if it's been submitted to Qt but they're
> ignoring it then use Submitted and ideally put a link to the patch.
>
> Ross
Met vriendelijke groet / kind regards,
Mike Looijmans
System Expert
TOPIC Embedded Systems
Eindhovenseweg 32-C, NL-5683 KH Best
Postbus 440, NL-5680 AK Best
Telefoon: (+31) (0) 499 33 69 79
Telefax: (+31) (0) 499 33 69 70
E-mail: mike.looijmans@topic.nl
Website: www.topic.nl
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Topic zoekt gedreven (embedded) software specialisten!
http://topic.nl/vacatures/topic-zoekt-software-engineers/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread