Create API for mutex that is always fair #204
Merged
+335
−0
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Amanieu
reviewed
Jan 7, 2020
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 9, 2020
204: Create API for mutex that is always fair r=Amanieu a=paulocsanz Fixes #76. I don't know if there is interest in having a API for a Mutex that is always fair, but solving it at the type level seems better than requiring a state for each mutex. Fairness sometimes is required, so making type level assurances so another dev can't screw up may solve a bunch of problems, it's probably already being done by people that need it since it's just a thin wrapper. This implements a `FairMutex` and it's `RawFairMutex`. This could be done for RwLock too if there is interest. Idk if the tests are required since it's literally calling something already tested, but I just copied the files and made it compile. I had to remove the Condvar test, since Condvar assumes it's a MutexGuard, and doesn't accept a FairMutexGuard. Co-authored-by: Paulo <paulosanz@poli.ufrj.br>
|
bors r- |
Canceled |
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 9, 2020
204: Create API for mutex that is always fair r=Amanieu a=paulocsanz Fixes #76. I don't know if there is interest in having a API for a Mutex that is always fair, but solving it at the type level seems better than requiring a state for each mutex. Fairness sometimes is required, so making type level assurances so another dev can't screw up may solve a bunch of problems, it's probably already being done by people that need it since it's just a thin wrapper. This implements a `FairMutex` and it's `RawFairMutex`. This could be done for RwLock too if there is interest. Idk if the tests are required since it's literally calling something already tested, but I just copied the files and made it compile. I had to remove the Condvar test, since Condvar assumes it's a MutexGuard, and doesn't accept a FairMutexGuard. Co-authored-by: Paulo <paulosanz@poli.ufrj.br>
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.
Fixes #76. I don't know if there is interest in having a API for a Mutex that is always fair, but solving it at the type level seems better than requiring a state for each mutex. Fairness sometimes is required, so making type level assurances so another dev can't screw up may solve a bunch of problems, it's probably already being done by people that need it since it's just a thin wrapper.
This implements a
FairMutexand it'sRawFairMutex. This could be done for RwLock too if there is interest.Idk if the tests are required since it's literally calling something already tested, but I just copied the files and made it compile. I had to remove the Condvar test, since Condvar assumes it's a MutexGuard, and doesn't accept a FairMutexGuard.