| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is based on @eta's patches for !118 and !119: Since we already
have an unbounded channel, we don't need to use an elaborate mess of
one-shot senders. We can just use the unbounded_send() method,
which also lets us enqueue a message without having to await.
Closes #219.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead of putting a fully qualified name in the text, in most cases
we should just use the short name of the type or function we're
referring to.
In other words, instead of saying [`crate::module::Foo`], we should
typically say [`Foo`](crate::module::Foo).
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The advantage here is that we no longer have to use a futures-aware
Mutex, or a blocking send operation, and therefore can simplify a
bunch of the GuardMgr APIs to no longer be async. That'll avoid
having to propagate the asyncness up the stack.
The disadvantage is that unbounded channels are just that: nothing
in the channel prevents us from overfilling it. Fortunately, the
process that consumes from the channel shouldn't block much, and
the channel only gets filled when we're planning a circuit path.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Also, refactor our message handling to be more like the tor_proto
reactors. The previous code had a bug where, once the stream of
events was exhausted, we wouldn't actually get any more
notifications.
|
|
|
There are some missing parts here (like persistence and tests)
and some incorrect parts (I am 90% sure that the "exploratory
circuit" flag is bogus). Also it is not integrated with the circuit
manager code.
|
