Todo: update
This commit is contained in:
@@ -9,14 +9,6 @@
|
||||
a ref and not by-value. Propagate this upward into
|
||||
SerializedAsyncContin and into all derived classes'
|
||||
constructors.
|
||||
* In classes like udpCommandDemuxer and possibly other such background tasks,
|
||||
use a spinlock to ensure that the stop() function doesn't deallocate the
|
||||
data to be used by the daemon task while the daemon task is executing.
|
||||
* Alternatively we could re-emqueue the message;
|
||||
* Alternatively, if select/poll don't consume the read-data-rdy flag,
|
||||
we can just return and let the next timer invocation run instead.
|
||||
* Alternatively, we can use an xchg'd flag between the udp listener
|
||||
and the timed enforcer.
|
||||
* In livoxProto1/device.cpp, migrate the registerUdpCommandHandler() calls
|
||||
from using the inProgress collection to the per-device collections.
|
||||
* In cases where we use boost deadline_timers and pass in an async
|
||||
@@ -25,16 +17,6 @@
|
||||
after they expire just in case boost doesn't clean up the internal
|
||||
callable that we passed it. Or else we'll have circular sh_ptr
|
||||
references in our continuations.
|
||||
* Think of a unified mechanism or a design pattern which will ensure that
|
||||
timeouts will always either expire or be canceled before program
|
||||
finalization.
|
||||
Or more generically, before their lifetime ends.
|
||||
* One good mechanism is to use synchronous waits on the timeout
|
||||
events. This is fine during program shutdown because we don't
|
||||
need to care about responsiveness during program shutdown.
|
||||
* We can use asynchronous bridging to ensure that asynchronous
|
||||
events are executed in the meantime while we wait for the sync
|
||||
timeout to complete.
|
||||
* UdpCommandDemuxer::registerUdpCommandHandler should accept a pointer
|
||||
to the io_context of the thread it should post its callbacks to, and
|
||||
then post callbacks to those io_contexts when UDP cmd responses
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user