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
Fix documentation in tokio::sync::watch
#5261
Conversation
tokio/src/sync/watch.rs
Outdated
/// to keep the borrow as short lived as possible. Additionally, if you are | ||
/// running in an environment that allows `!Send` futures, you must ensure that | ||
/// running in an environment that disallows `!Send` futures, you must ensure that | ||
/// the returned `Ref` type is never held alive across an `.await` point. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is correct as written.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But if the environment allows !Send
futures, then there is no restriction for holding a reference to Ref
across an .await
point. This restriction applies only when !Send
futures are disallowed (e.g. multi-thread runtime).
So I still think this is a valid correction
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Holding a Ref
across an .await
is always bad because it can lead to a deadlock, but if !Send
futures are disallowed, then you can't do it by accident since the compiler will catch it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Aha, I see this may lead to a panic or a deadlock... That's the piece I was missing. Maybe I should extend this comment to make it more explicit about what the aftermath is? WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's fine. (It can only lead to a deadlock, not a panic.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added a small clarification about the deadlock, and added a dash to long-lived
and short-lived
words as per the grammar.
I've noticed that this paragraph, which warns about holding a ref across an .await
point, is repeated in several places. Some of them slightly differed from the doc comment on the struct Ref
. I've updated them all to the same wording for consistency ✔️
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Darksonn waiting for your review
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks.
Fixed just a few logical and grammar mistakes in the docs