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

v2.1: tpu-client-next: return receiver in scheduler::run (backport of #4454) #4521

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 24, 2025

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link

@mergify mergify bot commented Jan 17, 2025

Problem & Solution

Return receiver from scheduler run so that it can be reused if required. This is needed to use in validator because user can make an rpc call to update underlying authority, and due to the way this mechanism is implemented, we have to reutilize the same receiver.

These changes are part of the reverted PR https://github.com/anza-xyz/agave/pull/3515/files#diff-17507818c3be9c444eb55f6c0b2d82ac0662746abf0dff6b200d43bf9ca125c2

They are split into a separate PR for the sake of backporting and to have a clearer history.


This is an automatic backport of pull request #4454 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).

Return receiver from scheduler::run so that it can be reused if required. This is needed to use tpu-client-next in validator because user can make an rpc call to update underlying authority, and due to the way this mechanism is implemented, we have to re-utilize the same receiver.

(cherry picked from commit 85b6118)
@mergify mergify bot requested a review from a team as a code owner January 17, 2025 15:16
@KirillLykov KirillLykov requested a review from bw-solana January 23, 2025 08:52
Copy link

@bw-solana bw-solana left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Approving as SME.

Wearing my backport hat, I have some concerns about backporting breaking changes to public interface, but I don't think anyone is using this new crate, so I'm okay turning a blind eye in this case

@KirillLykov
Copy link

Approving as SME.

Wearing my backport hat, I have some concerns about backporting breaking changes to public interface, but I don't think anyone is using this new crate, so I'm okay turning a blind eye in this case

Do we need to have two approvals?

@KirillLykov KirillLykov requested a review from steviez January 23, 2025 16:49
@bw-solana
Copy link

I was going to give @t-nelson some time to voice any concerns

@KirillLykov
Copy link

I was going to give @t-nelson some time to voice any concerns

He approved, pls approve

@KirillLykov KirillLykov merged commit 6ea1cfc into v2.1 Jan 24, 2025
28 checks passed
@KirillLykov KirillLykov deleted the mergify/bp/v2.1/pr-4454 branch January 24, 2025 14:28
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.

3 participants