| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Tweak variable names in the deadlock example to remove any potential
confusion that the behavior is somehow shadowing-related.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implement `MappedMutexGuard`, `MappedRwLockReadGuard`, and `MappedRwLockWriteGuard`.
ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/260
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117108
<details> <summary> (Outdated) </summary>
`MutexState`/`RwLockState` structs
~~Having `sys::(Mutex|RwLock)` and `poison::Flag` as separate fields in the `Mutex`/`RwLock` would require `MappedMutexGuard`/`MappedRwLockWriteGuard` to hold an additional pointer, so I combined the two fields into a `MutexState`/`RwLockState` struct. This should not noticeably affect perf or layout, but requires an additional field projection when accessing the former `.inner` or `.poison` fields (now `.state.inner` and `.state.poison`).~~ If this is not desired, then `MappedMutexGuard`/`MappedRwLockWriteGuard` can instead hold separate pointers to the two fields.
</details>
The doc-comments are mostly copied from the existing `*Guard` doc-comments, with some parts from `lock_api::Mapped*Guard`'s doc-comments.
Unresolved question: Are more tests needed?
|
|
|
|
Closes #96469
@rustbot +T-libs-api
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When copying the documentation for `clear_poison` from Mutex, not every occurence of 'mutex' was replaced with 'lock'.
|
|
with `Mutex` and `RwLock`
`Mutex` prints `<locked>` as a field value when its inner value cannot be accessed, but the lazy types print a fixed string like "`OnceCell(Uninit)`". This could cause confusion if the inner type is a unit type named `Uninit` and does not respect the pretty-printing flag. With this change, the format message is now "`OnceCell(<uninit>)`", consistent with `Mutex`.
|
|
|
|
Consistently write `RwLock`
Before the documentation sometimes referred to an "rwlock" and sometimes to "`RwLock`".
|
|
|
|
Before the documentation sometimes referred to an "rwlock" and sometimes to "`RwLock`".
|
|
Uplift the `let_underscore` lints from clippy into rustc.
This PR resolves #97241.
This PR adds three lints from clippy--`let_underscore_drop`, `let_underscore_lock`, and `let_underscore_must_use`, which are meant to capture likely-incorrect uses of `let _ = ...` bindings (in particular, doing this on a type with a non-trivial `Drop` causes the `Drop` to occur immediately, instead of at the end of the scope. For a type like `MutexGuard`, this effectively releases the lock immediately, which is almost certainly the wrong behavior)
In porting the lints from clippy I had to copy over a bunch of utility functions from `clippy_util` that these lints also relied upon. Is that the right approach?
Note that I've set the `must_use` and `drop` lints to Allow by default and set `lock` to Deny by default (this matches the same settings that clippy has). In talking with `@estebank` he informed me to do a Crater run (I am not sure what type of Crater run to request here--I think it's just "check only"?)
On the linked issue, there's some discussion about using `must_use` and `Drop` together as a heuristic for when to warn--I did not implement this yet.
r? `@estebank`
|
|
Make RwLockReadGuard covariant
Hi, first time contributor here, if anything is not as expected, please let me know.
`RwLockReadGoard`'s type constructor is invariant. Since it behaves like a smart pointer to an immutable reference, there is no reason that it should not be covariant. Take e.g.
```
fn test_read_guard_covariance() {
fn do_stuff<'a>(_: RwLockReadGuard<'_, &'a i32>, _: &'a i32) {}
let j: i32 = 5;
let lock = RwLock::new(&j);
{
let i = 6;
do_stuff(lock.read().unwrap(), &i);
}
drop(lock);
}
```
where the compiler complains that &i doesn't live long enough. If `RwLockReadGuard` is covariant, then the above code is accepted because the lifetime can be shorter than `'a`.
In order for `RwLockReadGuard` to be covariant, it can't contain a full reference to the `RwLock`, which can never be covariant (because it exposes a mutable reference to the underlying data structure). By reducing the data structure to the required pieces of `RwLock`, the rest falls in place.
If there is a better way to do a test that tests successful compilation, please let me know.
Fixes #80392
|
|
Make {Mutex, Condvar, RwLock}::new() const.
This makes it possible to have `static M: Mutex<_> = Mutex::new(..);` 🎉
Our implementations [on Linux](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95035), [on Windows](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77380), and various BSDs and some tier 3 platforms have already been using a non-allocating const-constructible implementation. As of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97647, the remaining platforms (most notably macOS) now have a const-constructible implementation as well. This means we can finally make these functions publicly const.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
`Mutex::lock()` and `RwLock::write()` are poison-guarded against panics,
in that they set the poison flag if a panic occurs while they're locked.
But if we're already in a panic (`thread::panicking()`), they leave the
poison flag alone.
That check is a bit of a waste for methods that never set the poison
flag though, namely `get_mut()`, `into_inner()`, and `RwLock::read()`.
These use-cases are now split to avoid that unnecessary call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to add the diagnostic to the actual types in `std` earlier.
|
|
Add functions to un-poison Mutex and RwLock
See discussion at https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/unpoisoning-a-mutex/16521/3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See discussion at https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/unpoisoning-a-mutex/16521/3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RWLock: Add deadlock example
Suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82596 but it was a bit too late.
`@matklad` `@azdavis` `@sfackler`
|
|
- Split `sys_common::RWLock` between `StaticRWLock` and `MovableRWLock`
- Unbox `RwLock` on some platforms (Windows, Wasm and unsupported)
- Simplify `RwLock::into_inner`
|
|
Use "the `WouldBlock` error" instead of "the error `WouldBlock`", etc.
|
|
Clarify error returns from Mutex::try_lock, RwLock::try_read,
RwLock::try_write to make it more obvious that both poisoning
and the lock being already locked are possible errors.
|
|
|
|
Improve Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock.
This improves the Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock.
They now show the poison flag and use debug_non_exhaustive. (See #67364.)
|
|
They now show the poison flag and use debug_non_exhaustive.
|
