Commit 42723724 authored by Aaryaman Sagar's avatar Aaryaman Sagar Committed by Facebook Github Bot

Remove reference to folly::Synchronized from DistributedMutex

Summary:
The integration with folly::Synchronized has not landed, remove the comment that
mentions it

(Note: this ignores all push blocking failures!)

Reviewed By: yfeldblum

Differential Revision: D15891316

fbshipit-source-id: 890ddb85e36605ddec418e782d1f168ddd0cf66e
parent 66f40fbd
......@@ -100,15 +100,15 @@ namespace distributed_mutex {
* preemption.
*
* DistributedMutex does not have the typical mutex API - it does not satisfy
* the Lockable concept. It requires the user to maintain ephemeral
* bookkeeping and pass that bookkeeping around to unlock() calls. The API
* overhead, however, comes for free when you wrap this mutex for usage with
* folly::Synchronized or std::unique_lock, which is the recommended usage
* (std::lock_guard, in optimized mode, has no performance benefit over
* std::unique_lock, so has been omitted). A benefit of this API is that it
* disallows incorrect usage where a thread unlocks a mutex that it does not
* own, thinking a mutex is functionally identical to a binary semaphore,
* which, unlike a mutex, is a suitable primitive for that usage
* the Lockable concept. It requires the user to maintain ephemeral bookkeeping
* and pass that bookkeeping around to unlock() calls. The API overhead,
* however, comes for free when you wrap this mutex for usage with
* std::unique_lock, which is the recommended usage (std::lock_guard, in
* optimized mode, has no performance benefit over std::unique_lock, so has been
* omitted). A benefit of this API is that it disallows incorrect usage where a
* thread unlocks a mutex that it does not own, thinking a mutex is functionally
* identical to a binary semaphore, which, unlike a mutex, is a suitable
* primitive for that usage
*
* Combined critical sections allow the implementation to elide several
* expensive operations during the lifetime of a critical section that cause
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment