Issue #2597: Add thread safety to duplicate name hash #2632
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sixlettervariables
requested review from
neoancient,
NickAragua and
Windchild292
|
I should add I was unable to replicate the original issue. |
Windchild292
approved these changes
Feb 9, 2021
|
Your discretion on 0.48, especially given MegaMek/mekhq#2412 |
|
I have never been able to reproduce this, so it may be worth seeing if one of the bug reporters can test a snapshot of this. |
NickAragua
approved these changes
Mar 6, 2021
Windchild292
approved these changes
Mar 6, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The duplicate name protection code used a
Hashtablewhich is thread safe, however, performing multiple operations is not atomic. This switches to use a lock to synchronize access to duplicate name generation. This also adds a lock to synchronize setting the short and display names. This makes both operations atomic and idempotent.I don't think this is necessary for 0.48.