Why can't the mutexes for continuations simply use test-and-set. We
only ever try to lock them (and requeue the continuation if lock is
not available), correct? Since it's hard to be sure in TS when a
continuation does or does not need a lock, it would be nice if one
could be used defensively wit
Because having the locks be recursive is a critical feature due to the tail
recursion used in event handling. And there are places (in other threads)
where blocking locks on Continuations are used.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:20 PM Walt Karas wrote:
> Why can't the mutexes for continuations simpl
I don't see the relevance of recursiveness, a non-block lock can be
recursive. What "other threads" do you mean? Are the blocking locks
rare enough that we could implement them with brief usleep() and a
retry?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:13 PM Alan Carroll wrote:
>
> Because having the locks be re
Hello,
I would like to opensource a plugin we are using into 7.1.x branch.
Please let me know if this would be acceptable?
--
pushkar
Do you have a PR for this plugin?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:49 PM Pushkar Pradhan
wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like to opensource a plugin we are using into 7.1.x branch.
> Please let me know if this would be acceptable?
>
> --
> pushkar
>
