The EVLOCK_LOCK and EVLOCK_UNLOCK macros already check to make sure
that the lock is present before messing with it, so there's no point
in checking the lock before calling them.
A good compiler should be able to simplify code like
if (lock) {
if (lock)
acquire(lock);
}
, but why count on it?
The different bufferevent implementations had different behavior for
their timeouts. Some of them kept re-triggering the timeouts
indefinitely; some disabled the event immediately the first time a
timeout triggered. Some of them made the timeouts only count when
the bufferevent was actively trying to read or write; some did not.
The new behavior is modeled after old socket bufferevents, since
they were here first and their behavior is relatively sane.
Basically, each timeout disables the bufferevent's corresponding
read or write operation when it fires. Timeouts are stopped
whenever we suspend writing or reading, and reset whenever we
unsuspend writing or reading. Calling bufferevent_enable resets a
timeout, as does changing the timeout value.
This should end the family of bugs where we call bufferevent_free()
while a pending callback is holding a reference on the bufferevent,
and the callback tries to invoke the user callbacks before it releases
its own final reference.
This means that bufferevent_decref() is now a separate function from
bufferevent_free().
When we're doing a lookup in preparation for doing a connect, we
might have an unconnected socket on hand, and mustn't actually do
any reading or writing with it.
Most of these should be unable to fail, since adding a timeout
generally always works. Still, it's better not to try to be "too
smart for our own good here."
There are some remaining event_add() calls that I didn't add checks
for; I've marked those with "XXXX" comments.
The fairness algorithms are not the best, not every bufferevent type
is supported, and some of the locking tricks here are simply absurd.
Still, this code should be a good first step.
There are lots of things we do internally in bufferevents to indicate
"the user would like this operation to happen, but we aren't going to
try until some other condition goes away." Our logic here has gotten
entirely too complicated.
This patch tries to fix that by adding the idea of 'suspend flags' for
read and write. To say "don't bother reading or writing until
condition X no longer holds," bufferevent_suspend_read/write(bev,
BEV_SUSPEND_X). When X no longer holds, call
bufferevent_unsuspend_read/write(bev, BEV_SUSPEND_X).
Right now, only the read-watermark logic uses this.
Previously, our default lock model kind of assumed that every lock was
potentially a read-write lock. This was a poor choice, since
read-write locks are far more expensive than regular locks, and so the
lock API should only use them when we can actually take advantage of
them. Neither our pthreads or win32 lock implementation provided rw
locks.
Now that we have a way (not currently used!) to indicate that we
really want a read-write lock, we shouldn't actually say "lock this
for reading" or "lock this for writing" unless we mean it.
The entry points are evutil_getaddrinfo and evdns_getaddrinfo respectively.
There are fairly extensive unit tests.
I believe this code conforms to RFC3493 pretty closely, but there are
probably more issues. It should get tested on more platforms.
This code means we can dump the well-intentioned but weirdly-implemented
bufferevent_evdns and evutil_resolve code.
svn:r1537
This is code by Chris Davis, with changes to get the unit tests failing less aggressively.
The unit tests for this code do not completely pass yet; Chris is looking into that. If they aren't passing by the next release, I'll turn off this code.
svn:r1499
This function, bufferevent_socket_connect_hostname() can either use
evdns to do the resolve, or use a new function (evutil_resolve) that
uses getaddrinfo or gethostbyname, like http.c does now.
This function is meant to eventually replace the hostname resolution mess in
http.c.
svn:r1496
This code adds a new Bufferevent type that is only compiled when the
openssl library is present. It supports using an SSL object and an
event alert mechanism, which can either be an fd or an underlying
bufferevent.
There is still more work to do: the unit tests are incomplete, and we
need to support flush and shutdown much better. Sometimes events are
generated needlessly: this will hose performance.
There's a new encrypting proxy in sample/le-proxy.c.
This code has only been tested on OSX, and nowhere else.
svn:r1382
Rationale: we hold a lock on the bufferevent when its callbacks are
executing, so we need to release the lock afterwards. But the
callback might free the bufferevent, so unless we're holding a
reference on the bufferevent, the lock might not be there for us to
release.
svn:r1347
Paired and asynchronous bufferevents didn't do timeouts, and filtering
bufferevents gave them funny semantics. Now they all should all work
in a way consistent with what socket bufferevents do now: a [read/write]
timeout triggers if [reading/writing] is enabled, and if the timeout is
set, and the right amount of time passes without any data getting
[added to the input buffer/drained from the output buffer].
svn:r1314
OpenSSL uses something like this to implement get/set access for
properties on its BIOs, so that it doesn't need to add a pair of
get/set functions to the vtable struct for every new abstract property
it provides an accessor for.
Doing this lets us make bufferevent_setfd abstract, and implement an
abstract bufferevent_getfd.
svn:r1284
This is stuff that it's easy to get wrong (as I noticed when writing
bench_http), and that takes up a fair amount of space (see http.c).
Also, it's something that we'll eventually want to abstract to use
IOCP, where available.
svn:r1272
This way we don't expose more of a bufferevent than we need to. One
motivation is to make it easier to automatically get deferred callbacks
with a bufferevent without exposing the deferred_cb structure.
svn:r1169
The new bufferevent_pair abstraction works like a set of buferevent_sockets
connected by a socketpair, except that it doesn't require a socketpair,
and therefore doesn't need to get the kernel involved.
It's also a good way to make sure that deferred callbacks work. It's a good
use case for deferred callbacks: before I implemented them, the recursive
relationship between the evbuffer callback and the read callback would
make the unit tests overflow the stack.
svn:r1152
a) this is 2009
b) niels and nick have been comaintainers for a while
c) saying "all rights reserved" when you then go on to explicitly
disclaim some rights is sheer cargo-cultism.
svn:r1065
