>> Though I'm still curious about the logic in that function, the forking issue notwithstanding: should that be an "assert not reached" on line 1098?
Yes, the following line 1099 is redundant after the assert. SET_KICK_STATE(next_worker, KICKED); I will remove it. -Sree On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Giang Nguyen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Sree Kuchibhotla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> oh.. I didn't realize you were doing a fork() call. grpc actually does >> not support fork and is known to create strange issues like the one you >> reported. >> > > Ah, right, OK. We'll work around this as we run into weird problems. > > Though I'm still curious about the logic in that function, the forking > issue notwithstanding: should that be an "assert not reached" on line 1098? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "grpc.io" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/CALRi9QfnO_3K0%2Btf9dHB%3DC_TPkewv%3Dbr8oK4Luy56khVO9JKdg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
