-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 169
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(libsinsp): Add wrapper for read/write lock #1877
Conversation
/milestone 0.18.0 |
a8b0cca
to
b6b3335
Compare
`mutex.h` already has a nice abstraction that allows exclusive access to an object. This change extends that paradigm to allow similar simple function calls that allow read/write locking primitives using a `shared_mutex`. Signed-off-by: Sahas Panda <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: FedeDP, greyhame-s The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 6b590b386fabe27e036d12d7aa211685759b18e9
|
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area libsinsp
Does this PR require a change in the driver versions?
What this PR does / why we need it:
mutex.h
already has a nice abstraction that allows exclusive access to an object. This change extends that paradigm to allow similar simple function calls that allow read/write locking primitives using ashared_mutex
.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
The timekeeping stats were useful to me during testing, but I am not married to them. It also looks like the
.clang-format
in the root directory, when applied to this file, resulted in some whitespace changes to otherwise unchanged code. If that is not expected, then I can revert the formatting to existing lines as well.Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
No