overhaul mutex_{atomic,integer}
#15632
Conversation
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Lintcheck changes for 778da58
This comment will be updated if you push new changes |
|
Oh, looking at Lintcheck, I'll also need to (re-)add a EDIT: Although that wasn't actually linted before -- what Lintcheck shows is the mutex being created for a struct constructor, but that's arguably another instance of linting use, not declaration, so linting on field definitions would be a nice addition, but probably best left to after the feature freeze |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
- The main message should point out what's wrong, not directly suggest a solution. - The second part of the message is a separate advice, so it should be emitted separately.
`Mutex<*const _>` doesn't make a lot of sense (there can be no contention over a read-only reference), but `AtomicPtr::new(*const _)` straight up doesn't compile
|
This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
|
When I saw the lines added, I thought I'd be in for a longer review, but laudably most of the lines are in tests added. So this looks good to me. Thanks! |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
3 participants
clippy::mutex_integerlints on uses ofMutex<{integer}>, not just definitions #13378)Mutex<*const T>(see the corresponding commit for context)The last change might be deemed a bit too much for the feature freeze, but it can be easily extracted out into a separate PR.
changelog: [
mutex_atomic]: only lint the definitions, not useschangelog: [
mutex_atomic]: better help messages, and suggestionschangelog: [
mutex_atomic]: don't lintMutex<*const T>changelog: [
mutex_integer]: only lint the definitions, not useschangelog: [
mutex_integer]: better help messages, and suggestions