You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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
This is the initial pull request for grpc_completion_queue_create changes as listed in the gRFC grpc/proposal#6 . These were the minimum set of changes I could make to get this to compile and for tests (C/C++) to pass :) [Note: This has all the API changes needed. Its just that I resisted the temptation to implement a bit more functionality]
Changes in this PR
Breaking change to the grpc_completion_queue_create API in C-Core
Added asserts in grpc_completion_queue_next and grpc_completion_queue_pluck to make sure they are called on the completion queues with correct grpc_cq_completion_type
Did not make any other functionality changes in core (like for example not creating a pollset if grpc_cq_polling_type is NON_POLLING). This will happen in a separate PR
No changes to the C++ user-facing API. These will happen in later PRs (when I work on hybrid servers). The main change in C++ was to make sure that completion queues created for Calls were of GRPC_CQ_PLUCK type and all other completion queues were of GRPC_CQ_NEXT type (the polling type for all these queues is DEFAULT_POLLING). Will make more changes later.
@murgatroid99 and @muxi: Can you please take a look at this PR ? sreecha#5
(Muxi for objective C changes and Michael for Ruby and Node)
If everything looks good, I'll merge that with this current PR
completion_queue_next() loop in grpc_php_shutdown_completion_queue
function as it is no longer needed. This was most likely an artifact of
a previous version of grpc-core where completion queues did not have a
"one tag in, one tag out" rule
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 is the initial pull request for
grpc_completion_queue_create
changes as listed in the gRFC grpc/proposal#6 . These were the minimum set of changes I could make to get this to compile and for tests (C/C++) to pass :) [Note: This has all the API changes needed. Its just that I resisted the temptation to implement a bit more functionality]Changes in this PR
Breaking change to the
grpc_completion_queue_create
API in C-CoreAdded asserts in
grpc_completion_queue_next
andgrpc_completion_queue_pluck
to make sure they are called on the completion queues with correctgrpc_cq_completion_type
Did not make any other functionality changes in core (like for example not creating a pollset if
grpc_cq_polling_type
isNON_POLLING
). This will happen in a separate PRNo changes to the C++ user-facing API. These will happen in later PRs (when I work on hybrid servers). The main change in C++ was to make sure that completion queues created for
Call
s were ofGRPC_CQ_PLUCK
type and all other completion queues were ofGRPC_CQ_NEXT
type (the polling type for all these queues isDEFAULT_POLLING
). Will make more changes later.Changes in other wrapped languages
UPDATE
Update on 3/22/2017: Pulled in the changes from #10245 as well.
This change is