Re: master fa52782f5c: Make timer_check even more resilient

[Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
>
>> +  block_input ();
>> +  turn_on_atimers (false);
>>  
>>    /* We use copies of the timers' lists to allow a timer to add itself
>>       again, without locking up Emacs if the newly added timer is
>> @@ -4646,6 +4648,8 @@ timer_check (void)
>>    else
>>      idle_timers = Qnil;
>>  
>> +  turn_on_atimers (true);
>> +  unblock_input ();
>
> Does input really have to be blocked around this?
>
> The call to `unblock_input' will end up reading async input, which might
> not be safe at that spot.  (The X11 drag and drop code used to suffer
> from this problem, and debugging the resulting crashes was not easy.)

There was apparently a segfault due to an atimer being called while the
copy-sequence was doing done, but it does indeed seem very unlikely.
The inhibit_quit there also seems unlikely to actually do anything.

Can you have a look at the bug thread and see what you think?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no