Remove ownerProcess field from LegacyDescriptor#2245
Merged
stevenengler merged 2 commits intoshadow:mainfrom Jul 1, 2022
Merged
Remove ownerProcess field from LegacyDescriptor#2245stevenengler merged 2 commits intoshadow:mainfrom
ownerProcess field from LegacyDescriptor#2245stevenengler merged 2 commits intoshadow:mainfrom
Conversation
sporksmith
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2022
de418d6 to
d81cd73
Compare
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
A file description is not owned by any one process, so the
LegacyDescriptorshould not have thisownerProcessfield. Removing this field should make it easier to supportfork()(#1987) and to support a non-ref-counted rustProcessobject in the future.The one place where this field is used is for listening TCP sockets, so the
TCPServerstruct now holds this process reference instead. The way that it's used is incorrect (#1780), but fixing that issue is much more difficult.