Skip to content

io: update to Mio 0.7 #2893

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Oct 2, 2020
Merged

io: update to Mio 0.7 #2893

merged 10 commits into from
Oct 2, 2020

Conversation

carllerche
Copy link
Member

@carllerche carllerche commented Sep 28, 2020

This also makes Mio an implementation detail, removing it from the
public API.

This is based on #1767.

Remaining

Sorry, something went wrong.

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.
carllerche Carl Lerche
This also makes Mio an implementation detail, removing it from the
public API.
pdxcarlrs and others added 4 commits September 30, 2020 22:48

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.
carllerche Carl Lerche
@carllerche carllerche marked this pull request as ready for review October 2, 2020 01:44
Copy link
Member

@ipetkov ipetkov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Modulo changing Cargo.toml to depend on `mio = 0.7.2" looks good to me!

I'll let Sean comment on the io-driver changes

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.
carllerche Carl Lerche

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.
carllerche Carl Lerche

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.
carllerche Carl Lerche
bug

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.
carllerche Carl Lerche
// Mio 0.7 removed `try_clone()` as an API due to unexpected behavior
// with registering dups with the same reactor. In this case, duping is
// safe as each dup is registered with separate reactors **and** we
// only at least one dup to receive the notification.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We only expect at least one dup to receive the notification?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All signal registrations are held in a global data structure. As long as some running SignalDriver gets woken, it will dispatch all pending signal notifications. A potential issue could be if we only wake one driver which isn't turning for whatever reason, but I believe this is unlikely

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe he was mostly commenting on the missing word :)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indeed. This threw me off a bit when reading this comment. It makes sense but took a bit of thinking to reconstruct the intent :)

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.
carllerche Carl Lerche
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants