-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
src: cleanup uv_fs_t regardless of success or not #38996
Conversation
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/38562/
|
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/38569/
|
@@ -223,8 +223,13 @@ int WriteFileSync(v8::Isolate* isolate, | |||
|
|||
int ReadFileSync(std::string* result, const char* path) { | |||
uv_fs_t req; | |||
auto defer_req_cleanup = OnScopeLeave([&req]() { | |||
uv_fs_req_cleanup(&req); | |||
}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
An alternative approach (that may be a bit nicer here) is to use a smart-pointer type of mechanism like we use elsewhere... something like...
struct UvFsReq {
uv_fs_t req;
~UvFsReq() {
uv_fs_req_cleanup(&req);
}
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds great, I'll do an update.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After several tries, I found that wrapping with a naive data struct did not work well in the case. We have to access members of uv_fs_t
and passing the pointer of uv_fs_t
back to uv, like:
uv_fs_t req;
uv_fs_open(nullptr, &req, path, O_RDONLY, 0, nullptr); // <- either we write with `&UvFsReq.req` or using operators to automatically convert (which might not be very straightforward since it implicit converting from data type to pointer type)
if (req.result < 0); // <- accessing member of `uv_fs_t`, either we write with UvFsReq.req.result or explicitly declare the member proxy in UvFsReq like `UvFsReq.result()`.
This is too much for the intent, a OnScopeLeave
just fit in well.
As such, I'd believe it is more readable and straightforward to use uv_fs_t
here. And there are a lot of precedents in the code base.
Landed in e4eadb2 |
PR-URL: #38996 Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #38996 Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #38996 Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #38996 Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#38996 Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
uv_fs_t
regardless of success or not.uv_fs_t
after cleanup.This is a quite recent change, so I'm requesting original author @joyeecheung 's review.