Skip to content

Conversation

@BratSinot
Copy link

@BratSinot BratSinot commented Feb 20, 2023

Fix #138

@SamTV12345
Copy link

Would be great if this gets merged.

@sfackler
Copy link
Owner

What is the point of doing this?

If we're going to support non-parking-lot mutexes this should use antidote rather than reimplementig non-poisoning locks manually.

@SamTV12345
Copy link

I took a look at this crate. It's more or less the same code. So the question is what would be more comfortable for you? Maintain two projects or one. These two approaches are better than parking lot with their own dependencies.

@BratSinot BratSinot requested a review from sfackler May 21, 2023 07:16
@sfackler
Copy link
Owner

What is the point of doing this?

@SamTV12345
Copy link

See above

@sfackler
Copy link
Owner

Why are these two approaches better than parking lot with its own dependencies?

@SamTV12345
Copy link

Because having other dependencies means they need to be compiled during build which means longer build times. If this is already included in the stdlib this would not be the case and I could get a smaller docker image.

@sfackler
Copy link
Owner

How much does this change affect your build times and docker image size?

@SamTV12345
Copy link

Enough that I want to have as few dependencies as possible.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Remove parking_lot dependency now that std's Mutex is faster than before

3 participants