It seems that use of eina_promise_data_get lead to mostly missuse. As it
duplicate other infrastructure which do not have the same problem. So better
remove it and if we need it back, we can just revert this patch later.
Reviewed-by: Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkrantz@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7578
eina_promise_data_set is a misleading API and result in conflicted use by
multiple independent piece of code leading to bug and crash. It is also not
necessary and we can avoid using it completely.
Reviewed-by: Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkrantz@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7575
A better solution is to actually have no eina_promise_data_set/get at all.
This reverts commit ce56f32270.
Reviewed-by: Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkrantz@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7574
This serie of patch didn't address the core problem in the design of the
ownership of eina_promise_data_{set/get} usage. It is also redundant with
other infrastructure in eina_promise and so not necessary completely.
This reverts commit de2ec0559b.
Reviewed-by: Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkrantz@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7573
commit 9b5155c9f1 brought about crashes
- specifically that i saw in terminology because it actually uses
eina_promise_data_set() and the new efl_loop_promise_new basically
took over ownership of that data, but if anyone used
eina_promise_data_set() the data ptr used by this new code would bwe
overwritten, causing segfauls when terminology loses selection
ownership. for days i had mysterious crashes of terminology until i
narrowed it down to the above, so if you have too, then this will fix
it.
what this does is create a data set intercept function callback that
for now is only for use inside efl to everride data sets so they set
data inside the new struct that tracks data. i also had to add and
intercept for eina_promise_data_free_cb_set() as this in theory could
also ber a similar problem.
so perhaps the idea/design of efl_loop_promise_new() is not right and
this kind of thgn has to be internal to eina promise... this means
eina promise and loops are much more tied together.
so the MAIN loop is actually an efl.app object. which inherits from
efl.loop. the idea is that other loops in threads will not be efl.app
objects. thread on the creator side return an efl.thread object.
inside the thread, like the mainloop, there is now an efl.appthread
object that is for all non-main-loop threads.
every thread (main loop or child) when it spawns a thread is the
parent. there are i/o pipes from parnet to child and back. so parents
are generally expected to, if they want to talk to child thread, so
use the efl.io interfaces on efl.thread, and the main loop's elf.app
class allows you to talk to stdio back to the parent process like the
efl.appthread does the same using the efl.io interfaces to talk to its
parent app or appthread. it's symmetrical
no tests here - sure. i have been holding off on tests until things
settle. that's why i haven't done them yet. those will come back in a
subsequent commit
for really quick examples on using this see:
https://phab.enlightenment.org/F2983118https://phab.enlightenment.org/F2983142
they are just my test code for this.
Please see this design document:
https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/efl-loops-threads/
also eina_procmis was not threadsafe so cannto use loops in different
threads at all until this was made safe. needed to disable the old
ecore_event using code in for ecore futures and create a new efl loop
message future and handler instead ... but now a quick experiment with
multiple loops in 10 threads plus mainloop have timers at least work.
i need to test more like fd handlers etc etc. but it's a step.
Efl.Future is an EO object which means even cancelling Efl.Future
objects requires EO. So this should be done before shutting down EO,
otherwise everything fails badly.
I believe Efl.Future is going to disappear soon, but the problem will
remain: if any promise/future uses EO or anything else outside of Eina
(so, basically anything) then it needs to be canceled before shutting
down the above layers. This is the same situation as with ecore events,
for which we've introduced ecore_event_type_flush.
Ping @cedric
This is a helper that creates a promise, then a future and immediately
resolves the promise, this will let the future be dispatched as usual,
from a clean main loop context.
Coverity reports that eina_safepointer_get returns a NULL promise here
(checked 20 out of 21 times). As eina_safepointer_get can return NULL,
we should check the validity of 'promise' here before trying to
derefernce it later.
Fixes Coverity CID1356625
@fix
Signed-off-by: Chris Michael <cp.michael@samsung.com>
Cancelling a promise will fulfill it but won't actually free the memory. This
memory is under custody of the owner, who must either call value_set or
error_set to finish it.
Now when dealing with pointer types, we will not get pointer to
pointer semantics in callbacks and eina_promise_owner_value_set
for Eina_Promise.
It will work as expected:
Eina_Promise_Owner* promise = eina_promise_add();
void* p = malloc(sizeof(T));
eina_promise_owner_value_set(promise, p, &free);
The call to eina_promise_then steals the first ref'count, so it is
possible that the promise is freed after the eina_promise_then,
so we need to eina_promise_ref before eina_promise_then.
We do properly unref promise while calling all the then callback. There
is no need to check it a second time (which actually lead to a 100%
bad access).
T3759
Cedric BAIL
Carsten Haitzler
Cedric BAIL
Jean-Philippe Andre
Thiep Ha
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
Guilherme Iscaro
Stefan Schmidt
Chris Michael
Felipe Magno de Almeida
Lauro Moura
Larry Jr
Tom Hacohen