Skip to content

Conversation

qianxichen233
Copy link
Contributor

This PR is splited from PR #164

This PR focuses on spliting out the signal interruption implementation on wasmtime part. Added logic to have Asyncify supporting signal interruption on syscall

@rennergade
Copy link
Contributor

This is failing some tests, do we think its related to this PR: #350

Also need to fix for linter

arg6,
),
_ => {
// if we are reaching here at rewind state, that means fork is called within
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This comment could be a bit more verbose, im not sure whats going on here exactly

arg6,
);

// Assumption: lind_syscall_api will not switch asyncify state, which holds true for now
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

if we have an assumption like this we need to explain why its true

Copy link
Contributor

@rennergade rennergade left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

a little more commenting would help, also a better PR description

@rennergade rennergade changed the title fix migration - wasmtime - asyncify & signal interruption wasmtime - asyncify & signal interruption Aug 20, 2025
@yzhang71 yzhang71 self-assigned this Aug 25, 2025
Copy link
Member

@Yaxuan-w Yaxuan-w left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would be great to have a more descriptive description, which explains why we need this modification

signal_asyncify_data: Vec<SignalAsyncifyData>,
signal_asyncify_counter: u64,
// syscall asyncify data, holds the sequence of syscall return value
syscall_asyncify_data: Vec<i32>,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe naming as sth like sys_return_async would be clearer?

assert_eq!(tank.get_fuel(), 0);
}
}
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Add new line

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.

4 participants