Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
2878013002:
Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in browser_policy_connector_chromeos.cc. (Closed)
DescriptionUse TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in browser_policy_connector_chromeos.cc.
SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler.
BUG=667892
R=bartfab@chromium.org
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2878013002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#473300}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/dd263e5fb0d88d7647bec402eccabe23233fcfe4
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 2
Patch Set 2 : CR-emaxx #Messages
Total messages: 19 (13 generated)
The CQ bit was checked by fdoray@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Please take a look. This CL was generated automatically. The base::MayBlock() trait was specified for all call sites and the base::TaskPriority::BACKGROUND trait was specified for all non-test call sites. That may not be appropriate for your use case. Please verify that appropriate traits were used https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/base/task_scheduler/task_traits.h If everything looks good, lgtm and CQ this CL. Otherwise, tell us what's wrong. Thanks. - FAQ - What if bots are red? Ignore this CL. A human will look at errors shortly. What if the shutdown behavior is not set explicitly (no base::TaskShutdownBehavior)? If shutdown behavior is important for a task, it should be set explicitly. It's not necessary to specify it if you're fine with either BLOCK_SHUTDOWN or SKIP_ON_SHUTDOWN. Note that the default shutdown behavior is BLOCK_SHUTDOWN in SequencedWorkerPool and SKIP_ON_SHUTDOWN in TaskScheduler. What if the task priority is not set explicitly (no base::TaskPriority)? When there is no explicit priority, the priority is inherited from the calling context (e.g. a task posted from a BACKGROUND task without an explicit priority will have a BACKGROUND priority).
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at: https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
Description was changed from ========== Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in browser_policy_connector_chromeos.cc. SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler. BUG=667892 R=bartfab@chromium.org ========== to ========== Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in browser_policy_connector_chromeos.cc. SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler. BUG=667892 R=bartfab@chromium.org ==========
fdoray@chromium.org changed reviewers: + emaxx@chromium.org
On 2017/05/12 17:04:53, fdoray wrote: > Please take a look. > > This CL was generated automatically. > > The base::MayBlock() trait was specified for all call sites and the > base::TaskPriority::BACKGROUND trait was specified for all non-test call sites. > That may not be appropriate for your use case. > > Please verify that appropriate traits were used > https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/base/task_scheduler/task_traits.h > If everything looks good, lgtm and CQ this CL. Otherwise, tell us what's wrong. > > Thanks. > > - FAQ - > > What if bots are red? Ignore this CL. A human will look at errors shortly. > > What if the shutdown behavior is not set explicitly (no > base::TaskShutdownBehavior)? > If shutdown behavior is important for a task, it should be set explicitly. > It's not necessary to specify it if you're fine with either BLOCK_SHUTDOWN or > SKIP_ON_SHUTDOWN. Note that the default shutdown behavior is BLOCK_SHUTDOWN in > SequencedWorkerPool and SKIP_ON_SHUTDOWN in TaskScheduler. > > What if the task priority is not set explicitly (no base::TaskPriority)? > When there is no explicit priority, the priority is inherited from the > calling context (e.g. a task posted from a BACKGROUND task without an > explicit priority will have a BACKGROUND priority). +emaxx@chromium.org (no reply from bartfab in one week)
LGTM https://codereview.chromium.org/2878013002/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/pol... File chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/browser_policy_connector_chromeos.cc (left): https://codereview.chromium.org/2878013002/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/pol... chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/browser_policy_connector_chromeos.cc:73: // Helper that returns a new SequencedTaskRunner backed by the blocking pool. nit: I guess, the "blocking pool" words have to be replaced too?
The CQ bit was checked by fdoray@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
https://codereview.chromium.org/2878013002/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/pol... File chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/browser_policy_connector_chromeos.cc (left): https://codereview.chromium.org/2878013002/diff/1/chrome/browser/chromeos/pol... chrome/browser/chromeos/policy/browser_policy_connector_chromeos.cc:73: // Helper that returns a new SequencedTaskRunner backed by the blocking pool. On 2017/05/19 19:45:03, emaxx wrote: > nit: I guess, the "blocking pool" words have to be replaced too? Done.
The CQ bit was unchecked by fdoray@chromium.org
The CQ bit was checked by fdoray@chromium.org
The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from emaxx@chromium.org Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2878013002/#ps20001 (title: "CR-emaxx")
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at: https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
CQ is committing da patch.
Bot data: {"patchset_id": 20001, "attempt_start_ts": 1495224007782300,
"parent_rev": "82bd374dd151cbcd4ca02ad091a48822050e507c", "commit_rev":
"dd263e5fb0d88d7647bec402eccabe23233fcfe4"}
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in browser_policy_connector_chromeos.cc. SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler. BUG=667892 R=bartfab@chromium.org ========== to ========== Use TaskScheduler instead of SequencedWorkerPool in browser_policy_connector_chromeos.cc. SequencedWorkerPool is being deprecated in favor of TaskScheduler. BUG=667892 R=bartfab@chromium.org Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2878013002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#473300} Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/dd263e5fb0d88d7647bec402ecca... ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/dd263e5fb0d88d7647bec402ecca... |
