Skip to content

fix incomplete timer unqueuing that prevent any further timer in the same task #4736

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

fix incomplete timer unqueuing that prevent any further timer in the same task #4736

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions embassy-time-queue-utils/CHANGELOG.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0
<!-- next-header -->
## Unreleased - ReleaseDate

- Fix usage of never ending timers

## 0.3.0 - 2025-08-26

## 0.2.1 - 2025-08-26
Expand Down
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions embassy-time-queue-utils/src/queue_integrated.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -130,6 +130,10 @@ impl Queue {
// Remove it
prev.set(item.next.get());
item.next.set(None);
// Presence of a waker is used by schedule_wake to determine
// if the item is part of the queue or not,
// so ensure there is no waker for items removed from the queue.
item.waker = None;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This comment isn't very clear, the problem was schedule_wake uses the presence of a waker to determine if an item is part of the queue or not, and that invariant wasn't maintained.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indeed, reading this comment again now, I realize it wasn't very clear.
Updated it now. It is hopefully clearer.

}
}
}
Expand Down