Skip to content
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

Use correct clock in park_timeout on Horizon #100539

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 28, 2022

Conversation

joboet
Copy link
Member

@joboet joboet commented Aug 14, 2022

Horizon does not support using CLOCK_MONOTONIC with condition variables, so use the system time instead.

@rustbot rustbot added the T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Aug 14, 2022
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 14, 2022

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

  • Stabilizing library features
  • Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
  • Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
  • Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
  • Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @joshtriplett

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Aug 14, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 11, 2022

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #101482) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@thomcc
Copy link
Member

thomcc commented Oct 23, 2022

@bors r+

@joboet
Copy link
Member Author

joboet commented Dec 2, 2022

It looks like bors missed that one...
@bors r=thomcc
(this will probably fail but maybe bors will reevaluate)

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 2, 2022

@joboet: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: Not in reviewers

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

bors was apparently asleep

@bors r=thomcc

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 27, 2022

📌 Commit ce051df has been approved by thomcc

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Dec 27, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 28, 2022

⌛ Testing commit ce051df with merge 6a4624d...

@thomcc
Copy link
Member

thomcc commented Dec 28, 2022

Thank you, I didn't notice this didn't go through.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 28, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: thomcc
Pushing 6a4624d to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Dec 28, 2022
@bors bors merged commit 6a4624d into rust-lang:master Dec 28, 2022
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.68.0 milestone Dec 28, 2022
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (6a4624d): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.0% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.0% [4.0%, 4.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.0% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants