Use {active,once} instead of async_recv

essen commented 5 years ago

Proposed Changes

Please describe the big picture of your changes here to communicate to the RabbitMQ team why we should accept this pull request. If it fixes a bug or resolves a feature request, be sure to link to that issue.

A pull request that doesn't explain why the change was made has a much lower chance of being accepted.

If English isn't your first language, don't worry about it and try to communicate the problem you are trying to solve to the best of your abilities. As long as we can understand the intent, it's all good.

Types of Changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to this project? Put an x in the boxes that apply

[ ] Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes issue #NNNN)
[ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
[ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
[ ] Documentation (correction or otherwise)
[x] Cosmetics (whitespace, appearance)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask on the mailing list. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

[ ] I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document
[ ] I have signed the CA (see https://cla.pivotal.io/sign/rabbitmq)
[x] All tests pass locally with my changes
[ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
[ ] I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)
[ ] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in related repositories

Further Comments

If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc.

michaelklishin commented 5 years ago

@essen I had to revert this due to obscure CI failures, will provide you data when you are back from holidays.

michaelklishin commented 5 years ago

Here's what fails on CI. Note that we moved to Erlang 21.2 the same day so I am not 100% sure which that is. Perhaps this shouldn't go into 3.7.10, though, we can sort it out later.

essen commented 5 years ago

You might have found a bug in the ssl application, seems it returns an invalid gen_statem callback return value. Not sure that's the real issue though.

essen commented 5 years ago

I'll send a PR to OTP over the week-end, the issue is simple enough to fix.

essen commented 5 years ago

PR: https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/2070

michaelklishin commented 5 years ago

@essen you are impressively productive 👍

michaelklishin commented 5 years ago

Backported to v3.7.x.

rabbitmq / rabbitmq-stomp