refactor: significant Mutex refactoring #5954
Merged
+134
−152
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
5 tasks
knst
reviewed
Mar 25, 2024
PastaPastaPasta
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 25, 2024
a09e260 refacotor: simply RecursiveMutex -> Mutex (pasta) Pull request description: ## What was done? This PR is a simpler version of #5954; it is simply a recursiveMutex -> Mutex PR; as I think some of the scope minimization in the other PR introduced test failures (appears there are undocumented mutex dependancies) ## How Has This Been Tested? CI TBD ## Breaking Changes None ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ ACKs for top commit: knst: utACK a09e260 Tree-SHA512: 4ef5aa94ecb1a55f30b642d5e0328e2d2a0adcf2ccc2ab6489a576a420c915339be023828785c3243f019bb73ac2cd77be7dd4397e14ec874cba68999a9e54dc
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
refac-recursive-mutex
branch
from
804c1da
to
4abc310
Compare
UdjinM6
requested changes
Mar 26, 2024
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
refac-recursive-mutex
branch
from
daf1ea7
to
72be270
Compare
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
Includes: RecursiveMutex -> Mutex, renaming of `cs` to something more meaningful, usage of atomics where trivially possible, introduce a method CQuorum::SetVerificationVector to avoid needing to lock an internal mutex externally fix: avoid cs_vvec_shShare double-lock Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <udjinm6@users.noreply.github.com>
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
refac-recursive-mutex
branch
from
72be270
to
acd0f49
Compare
PastaPastaPasta
closed this pull request by merging all changes
into
dashpay:develop
in
806fc73
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.
Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Don't use generic names; recursive mutexes where not needed; etc
What was done?
Includes:
RecursiveMutex -> Mutex,
renaming of
csto something more meaningful,usage of atomics where trivially possible,
introduce a method CQuorum::SetVerificationVector to avoid needing to lock an internal mutex externally
How Has This Been Tested?
Compiling
Breaking Changes
None
Checklist:
Go over all the following points, and put an
xin all the boxes that apply.