Move std::sys::{mutex, condvar, rwlock} to std::sys::locks. #95173
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
m-ou-se
added
the
T-libs
|
r? @dtolnay (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Since this touches a lot of platform specific code: @bors rollup=iffy |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
m-ou-se
force-pushed
the
sys-locks-module
branch
2 times, most recently
from
66b978d to
724fd5a
Compare
dtolnay
approved these changes
Mar 21, 2022
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 724fd5adae37c900812fa7b3a605a7f2fdde0939 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
⌛ Testing commit 724fd5adae37c900812fa7b3a605a7f2fdde0939 with merge 25793f067828e33f969eca5702d804ea2220aa0a... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@rustbot author |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
m-ou-se
force-pushed
the
sys-locks-module
branch
from
724fd5a to
8ddb34d
Compare
|
@bors r=dtolnay |
|
📌 Commit 8ddb34d has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 22, 2022
Move std::sys::{mutex, condvar, rwlock} to std::sys::locks.
This cleans up the the std::sys modules a bit by putting the locks in a single module called `locks` rather than spread over the three modules `mutex`, `condvar`, and `rwlock`. This makes it easier to organise lock implementations, which helps with rust-lang#93740.
|
⌛ Testing commit 8ddb34d with merge 2cff93665efc8cdc2e63b40fc01f8a24b2e78fee... |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
dtolnay
added
S-waiting-on-author
m-ou-se
force-pushed
the
sys-locks-module
branch
from
8ddb34d to
733153f
Compare
|
Third time's a charm? (: @bors r=dtolnay |
|
📌 Commit 733153f has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
@bors rollup=never |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
This was referenced Mar 23, 2022
|
Finished benchmarking commit (36748cf): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant results. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
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 cleans up the the std::sys modules a bit by putting the locks in a single module called
locksrather than spread over the three modulesmutex,condvar, andrwlock. This makes it easier to organise lock implementations, which helps with #93740.