-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 121
staticaddr: fix deposit recovery deadlock #954
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
Open
hieblmi
wants to merge
1
commit into
lightninglabs:master
Choose a base branch
from
hieblmi:fix-deadlock
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -191,10 +191,13 @@ func (m *Manager) recoverDeposits(ctx context.Context) error { | |
} | ||
|
||
// Send the OnRecover event to the state machine. | ||
err = fsm.SendEvent(ctx, OnRecover, nil) | ||
if err != nil { | ||
log.Errorf("Error sending OnStart event: %v", err) | ||
} | ||
go func(fsm *FSM) { | ||
err := fsm.SendEvent(ctx, OnRecover, nil) | ||
if err != nil { | ||
log.Errorf("Error sending OnStart event: %v", | ||
err) | ||
} | ||
}(fsm) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I propose to add a unit test that would fail with the dead-lock before this change and to make sure this goroutine doesn't leak in that test. |
||
|
||
m.mu.Lock() | ||
m.activeDeposits[d.OutPoint] = fsm | ||
|
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.
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.
I wonder what the tradeoff is between having this in a go func or more asynchronous fsm actions? from what I can tell in effect it is the same?
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.
But with most recent projects I tend to force tha actions to be asynchronous as this means we can go events only vs listening for channels everywhere where we need to interact with a blocking action