After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 407981 - Session hangs up when metacity .sm file is missing
Session hangs up when metacity .sm file is missing
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: metacity
Classification: Other
Component: general
2.16.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Metacity maintainers list
Metacity maintainers list
: 148305 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: 107063
 
 
Reported: 2007-02-14 19:52 UTC by Josselin Mouette
Modified: 2007-04-09 21:05 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.15/2.16


Attachments
Proposed implementation (2.05 KB, patch)
2007-02-18 17:05 UTC, Josselin Mouette
none Details | Review
Proposed implementation (2.05 KB, patch)
2007-02-23 19:29 UTC, Josselin Mouette
committed Details | Review

Description Josselin Mouette 2007-02-14 19:52:44 UTC
Metacity registers to the session manager with the --sm-save-file option, pointing to the file containing - among other things - the client ID.

When for some reason or another the file is missing, metacity cannot find back its client ID, and the session manager waits for 120 seconds for a registration that never comes.

In theory this should never happen, but it is nevertheless regularly hitting users, see for example http://bugs.debian.org/391287 and http://bugs.debian.org/315169.

I see two ways to fix this issue:
 * allow --sm-save-file and --sm-client-id to be set simultaneously, and register to the session manager with both options;
 * use the client ID as the filename.
The latter approach has the advantage to remain compatible with older metacity versions; I'll see if I can cook up something.
Comment 1 Josselin Mouette 2007-02-18 17:05:54 UTC
Created attachment 82833 [details] [review]
Proposed implementation

Here is an implementation of the latter approach described.
Comment 2 Josselin Mouette 2007-02-23 19:29:57 UTC
Created attachment 83187 [details] [review]
Proposed implementation

There was a typo in the first patch. This one should be better.
Comment 3 Thomas Thurman 2007-03-26 20:55:09 UTC
This patch looks good to me, but I'm not confident I know enough about session management to be sure enough to check it in. Can someone else take a look and give us a second opinion?
Comment 4 Thomas Thurman 2007-03-26 21:42:56 UTC
Actually, you already put this in downstream, didn't you, and it's working fine. So I think it'll be okay to put in trunk. Committed.
Comment 5 Elijah Newren 2007-04-09 21:05:18 UTC
*** Bug 148305 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***