SystemLayerImplSelect: fix Request/ClearCallbackOnPendingXXX() for… #21186
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
…spatch, clean transport (#21135) For CHIP_SYSTEM_CONFIG_USE_DISPATCH (Darwin) case, Request/ClearCallbackOnPendingXXX() were not working (no loop calling select to evaluate watches), but were called in TCP and UDP endpoint implementations, despite dispatch-specific extra code for the same purpose in the endpoints. This changeset now moves all CHIP_SYSTEM_CONFIG_USE_DISPATCH specific socket watching code into SystemLayerImplSelect, by making Request/ClearCallbackOnPendingXXX() actually working with dispatch. The issue surfaced in my (a bit exotic) use case when I needed to get callbacks for events on a plain socket not wrapped as TCPEndPoint. Doing this, I realized Request/ClearCallbackOnPendingXXX() were non-functional due to missing select main loop. Fixing this revealed the similar dispatch code in the endpoints that was needed to get those events handled despite Request/ClearCallbackOnPendingXXX() not working. That extra endpoint code now became redundant (delivering events twice), so had to be removed. I am aware that this might be a too deep intervention for coming from a CHIP newbie like me (not newbie in code deep diving, though), but I think it cleans up an inconsistency in the IP endpoints.
|
PR #21186: Size comparison from 6545766 to a01a836 Increases (5 builds for cc13x2_26x2, cyw30739, esp32)
Decreases (6 builds for cc13x2_26x2, nrfconnect, telink)
Full report (32 builds for bl602, cc13x2_26x2, cyw30739, efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, p6, telink)
|
woody-apple
deleted the
cherry-pick-3ca630c7014246d78227406ef786d310de449472
branch
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.
…dispatch case, clean transport
Problem
For CHIP_SYSTEM_CONFIG_USE_DISPATCH (Darwin) case, Request/ClearCallbackOnPendingXXX() were not working (no loop calling select to evaluate watches).
But still, these methods were called in TCP and UDP endpoint implementations, despite dispatch-specific extra code for the same purpose in the endpoints.
Change overview
This changeset now moves all CHIP_SYSTEM_CONFIG_USE_DISPATCH specific socket watching code into SystemLayerImplSelect, by making Request/ClearCallbackOnPendingXXX() actually working with dispatch.
The issue surfaced in my (a bit exotic) use case when I needed to get callbacks for events on a plain socket not wrapped as TCPEndPoint.
Doing this, I realized Request/ClearCallbackOnPendingXXX() were non-functional due to the missing select main loop.
Fixing this revealed the similar dispatch code in the endpoints that was needed to get those events handled despite Request/ClearCallbackOnPendingXXX() not working. That dispatch specific endpoint code now became redundant (delivering events twice), so had to be removed.
Testing
I am aware that this might be a too deep intervention and too limited testing for coming from a CHIP newbie like me (not newbie in code deep diving, though), but I think it cleans up an inconsistency in the IP endpoints, and maybe can be of use after review by CHIP experts...