fix: Locking on Lazy Sequences #580
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Contributor
Author
|
@frenchy64 would love to get your thoughts as you created the original issue and maybe you have some context for this! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #170
This is just a current draft of what I am thinking about for how to implement locking on lazy sequences.
I am using a
recursive_mutexwith the synchronized state so that there wouldn't be a deadlock when thelazy_seqtries to call back into itself while holding the lock.To be honest still trying to wrap my head around the implementation of lazy data structures. I think I understand how to use them, but how to build them is something new to me. Especially when discussing concurrency on them.