Clean up locking in Conn.shutdown() #398
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
...rather than having the caller do it. This is step 1 in cleaning up the logic here.
...including in subroutines. IMO the shutdown logic is a lot clearer after this change.
|
Failure looks like #394, re-running. |
lthibault
approved these changes
Dec 27, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This patch changes the contract of shutdown() such that it now expects the caller not to be holding c.lk. This allows it to acquire and release the lock itself as needed, thereby avoiding the need for syncutil.Without or just plain unlock/lock pairs.
This also reworks its subroutines to avoid unlock/lock pairs. The result is a lot easier to follow imo.
There is now only one use of syncutil.Without left in the codebase, though there are likely several other logical unlock/lock pairs to be rooted out.