On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 3:49 PM Gary Guo <gary@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 23:28:37 -0700
> Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hmm.. I think it makes more sense to make `access()` requires `where T:
> > Sync` instead of the current fix? I.e. I propose we do:
> >
> > impl<T, U> LockedBy<T, U> {
> > pub fn access<'a>(&'a self, owner: &'a U) -> &'a T
> > where T: Sync {
> > ...
> > }
> > }
> >
> > The current fix in this patch disallows the case where a user has a
> > `Foo: !Sync`, but want to have multiple `&LockedBy<Foo, X>` in different
> > threads (they would use `access_mut()` to gain unique accesses), which
> > seems to me is a valid use case.
> >
> > The where-clause fix disallows the case where a user has a `Foo: !Sync`,
> > a `&LockedBy<Foo, X>` and a `&X`, and is trying to get a `&Foo` with
> > `access()`, this doesn't seems to be a common usage, but maybe I'm
> > missing something?
>
> +1 on this. Our `LockedBy` type only works with `Lock` -- which
> provides mutual exclusion rather than `RwLock`-like semantics, so I
> think it should be perfectly valid for people to want to use `LockedBy`
> for `Send + !Sync` types and only use `access_mut`. So placing `Sync`
> bound on `access` sounds better.
I will add the `where` bound to `access`.
> There's even a way to not requiring `Sync` bound at all, which is to
> ensure that the owner itself is a `!Sync` type:
>
> impl<T, U> LockedBy<T, U> {
> pub fn access<'a, B: Backend>(&'a self, owner: &'a Guard<U, B>) -> &'a T {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> Because there's no way for `Guard<U, B>` to be sent across threads, we
> can also deduce that all caller of `access` must be from a single
> thread and thus the `Sync` bound is unnecessary.
Isn't Guard Sync? Either way, it's inconvenient to make Guard part of
the interface. That prevents you from using it from within
`&self`/`&mut self` methods on the owner.
Alice
