> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evgeny Kotkov [mailto:evgeny.kotkov_at_visualsvn.com]
> Sent: maandag 7 december 2015 12:11
> To: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
> Cc: Subversion Development <dev_at_subversion.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1718167 -
> Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> writes:
> > What is the real problem you try to solve here?
> > Ra apis are not able to support other apis during callbacks or when
> > editors are open… This is part of the ra contract as documented in svn_ra.h.
> > I don’t think we explicitly want to support users who break this contract.
> > Ra local supports a lot of things because it is a very thin layer over
> > the lower layers… (I once accidentally found out that you can get very
> > far passing bad batons during commit). But the only thing we promise
> > is that it supports the ra contract.
> This change is not about providing support for cases when someone violates
> the RA contract:
> * The caller may not perform any RA operations using @a session before
> * finishing the report, and may not perform any RA operations using
> * @a session from within the editing operations of @a update_editor.
> That's because the situation is different when zero-copy code path is being
> used. In that case, the caller can't use the FS API or any other API functions
> using FS API from the callbacks, even if they occur on a completely unrelated
> object. This is so because the zero-copy send happens while holding the lock
> for the cache. The cache object is a per-process singleton, so, the callback is
> executed while basically holding a global mutex.
> We are lucky that, for instance, svnsync doesn't use the reporter in its
> implementation, but an arbitrary svnsync-like application or other API users
> have a chance of hitting the described problems once they perform an API
> call from within the editor callback. As another example, our diff editor can
> perform RA calls using an extra RA session in some cases. If a call like that
> happened from within a zero-copy code path, it would cause problems in the
> ra_local case.
Thanks for this explanation. This wasn't clear for me when reading the original patch and the backport proposal. With that explanation I would have added my +1.
Any ideas how this affects editor v2 (And how it is used in JavaHL for 1.9)? Could this hit the limitations?
Received on 2015-12-07 12:23:20 CET