server: Use atomic types for some svr peer fields. #3237
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
jrick
approved these changes
Apr 30, 2024
This updates a couple of cases of server peer data fields protected by an individual mutex to make use of the newer atomic types introduced in Go 1.19 instead. This is desirable since atomic types are both simpler to use and more efficient when the data being protected does not require additional logic in the critical section as is the case for the updated fields.
davecgh
force-pushed
the
server_more_atomic_types
branch
from
9e686aa to
180eff2
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 updates a couple of cases of server peer data fields protected by an individual mutex to make use of the newer atomic types introduced in Go 1.19 instead.
This is desirable since atomic types are both simpler to use and more efficient when the data being protected does not require additional logic in the critical section as is the case for the updated fields.