avoid using dds common public mutex directly #474
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Chen Lihui <lihui.chen@sony.com>
|
CI:
|
iuhilnehc-ynos
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM given the changes in ros2/rmw_dds_common#73, but I would have one more look at some details there (as I wrote in a review comment).
I'll mark this approved: if ros2/rmw_dds_common#73 changes, then this'll have to change anyway and get reviewed again; but if the decision is that the other PR is good as it is (I'm only suggesting another look, after all) then this seems ok as it is, too.
Signed-off-by: Chen Lihui <lihui.chen@sony.com>
Signed-off-by: Chen Lihui <lihui.chen@sony.com>
rmw_cyclonedds_cpp/src/rmw_node.cpp
Outdated
| @@ -5097,7 +5070,8 @@ static void rmw_fini_cs(CddsCS * cs) | |||
| dds_delete(cs->pub->enth); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| static rmw_ret_t destroy_client(const rmw_node_t * node, rmw_client_t * client) | |||
| static rmw_ret_t destroy_client( | |||
| const rmw_node_t * node, rmw_client_t * client, bool destroy_graph = true) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please describe why we need the destroy_graph boolean here? It isn't totally clear to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After using make_scope_exit in the rmw_create_client, I removed the destroy_client and move its original implementation code into rmw_destroy_client since destroy_client is only called once, so there is no boolean flag.
Signed-off-by: Chen Lihui <lihui.chen@sony.com>
Signed-off-by: Chen Lihui <lihui.chen@sony.com>
Signed-off-by: Chen Lihui <lihui.chen@sony.com>
It depends on ros2/rmw_dds_common#73