Make remaining core channel spinlock opt-in #130
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
Signed-off-by: Johannes Löthberg <johannes.loethberg@elokon.com>
|
These changes make sense, thanks! |
|
Great work! Would be awesome to get a release with this. :) |
|
I've just released |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 makes the remaining use of spinlocks in the core flume channel implementation opt-in based on the
spinfeature. Without this change the crate cannot safely be used in RTOS systems due to priority inversion issues leading to the spinlock spinning forever and lower-priority threads never getting a chance to run.I've left the async and select modules alone for now since we do not have a use for these at the moment, but I think it would make sense to perform the same change there as well. If you wish I could look into doing it as part of the same PR.