OK cool. And I think just to make the error clearer we should change the assert to some kind of "assert not reached" since by three possible kick enum values have already been checked by that time. Thanks!
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Sree Kuchibhotla <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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/CAEryOqWMmGqeQ62qAVzEhW43nPNJ2RMfOT0wSx%2BiTeq6kknU5w%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
