Closed
Bug 1343743
Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
Label IPC actors in necko
Categories
(Core :: Networking, defect, P1)
Core
Networking
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla56
People
(Reporter: kershaw, Assigned: kershaw)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [necko-active][QDL][TDC-MVP][NECKO])
Attachments
(7 files, 10 obsolete files)
43.70 KB,
patch
|
kershaw
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
11.18 KB,
patch
|
kershaw
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
9.00 KB,
patch
|
kershaw
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
2.28 KB,
patch
|
kershaw
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
5.65 KB,
patch
|
kershaw
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
2.72 KB,
patch
|
kershaw
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
4.58 KB,
patch
|
kershaw
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Like the modification of HttpChannelChild in bug 1318506, this bug should label other IPC actors [1]. [1] http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/ac8a72f2d5204ced2004c93a9c193430c63a6a71/netwerk/ipc/PNecko.ipdl#47-61
Updated•7 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [necko-next] → [necko-next][QDL][TDC-MVP][NECKO]
Updated•7 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P1
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
Summary: - Add new class NeckoTargetHolder to hold mNeckoTarget. - Add new class NeckoTargetChannelEvent. - Remove some repeated code in HttpChannelChild and FtpChannelChild
Attachment #8867067 -
Flags: review?(honzab.moz)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
Summary: - Modify WyciwygChannelChild's constructor to receive an event target - Use NeckoTargetChannelEvent in WyciwygChannelChild
Assignee | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [necko-next][QDL][TDC-MVP][NECKO] → [necko-active][QDL][TDC-MVP][NECKO]
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•7 years ago
|
||
Summary: - Add an event target parameter in TCPSocketChild's and TCPServerSocketChild's constructor - Call gNeckoChild->SetEventTargetForActor before sending IPC constructor message Thanks.
Attachment #8867085 -
Flags: review?(josh)
Comment 4•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8867085 [details] [diff] [review] Part3: Set event target for TCPSocketChild and TCPServerSocketChild Review of attachment 8867085 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: dom/network/TCPServerSocket.cpp @@ +63,5 @@ > return NS_ERROR_FAILURE; > } > > if (XRE_GetProcessType() == GeckoProcessType_Content) { > + nsCOMPtr<nsIEventTarget> target = nullptr; No need for the `= nullptr`. ::: dom/network/TCPSocket.cpp @@ +270,5 @@ > > if (XRE_GetProcessType() == GeckoProcessType_Content) { > mReadyState = TCPReadyState::Connecting; > + > + nsCOMPtr<nsIEventTarget> target = nullptr; No need for `= nullptr;` ::: media/mtransport/nr_socket_prsock.cpp @@ +1973,5 @@ > > + dom::TCPSocketChild* child = > + new dom::TCPSocketChild(NS_ConvertUTF8toUTF16(remote_addr), > + remote_port, > + nullptr); You may want to check whether this makes sense with the webrtc folks, since this code is used for the e10s webrtc implementation.
Attachment #8867085 -
Flags: review?(josh) → review+
Comment 5•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8867067 [details] [diff] [review] Part1: Refactoring for mNeckoTarget and ChannelEvent Review of attachment 8867067 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- automatic r- for missing comments on new classes ::: netwerk/ipc/ChannelEventQueue.h @@ +45,5 @@ > } > }; > > +template<typename T> > +class NeckoTargetChannelEvent : public ChannelEvent I really can't tolerate total omission of any comments on new classes, sorry. @@ +61,5 @@ > + { > + MOZ_ASSERT(mChild); > + > + nsCOMPtr<nsIEventTarget> target = mChild->GetNeckoTarget(); > + return target.forget(); nit: can't return directly mChild->GetNeckoTarget();? @@ +65,5 @@ > + return target.forget(); > + } > + > +protected: > + T *mChild; how is the lifetime preserved? ::: netwerk/ipc/NeckoTargetHolder.h @@ +13,5 @@ > + > +namespace mozilla { > +namespace net { > + > +class NeckoTargetHolder again, no comments. ::: netwerk/protocol/http/HttpChannelChild.h @@ +176,5 @@ > AsyncCall(void (HttpChannelChild::*funcPtr)(), > nsRunnableMethod<HttpChannelChild> **retval = nullptr) override; > > + // Get event target for processing network events. > + already_AddRefed<nsIEventTarget> GetNeckoTarget() override; where is this overridden?
Attachment #8867067 -
Flags: review?(honzab.moz) → review-
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8867069 -
Flags: review?(honzab.moz) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Honza Bambas (:mayhemer) from comment #5) > Comment on attachment 8867067 [details] [diff] [review] > Part1: Refactoring for mNeckoTarget and ChannelEvent > > Review of attachment 8867067 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > automatic r- for missing comments on new classes > > ::: netwerk/ipc/ChannelEventQueue.h > @@ +45,5 @@ > > } > > }; > > > > +template<typename T> > > +class NeckoTargetChannelEvent : public ChannelEvent > > I really can't tolerate total omission of any comments on new classes, sorry. > Sorry, I'll add comments in next version. > @@ +61,5 @@ > > + { > > + MOZ_ASSERT(mChild); > > + > > + nsCOMPtr<nsIEventTarget> target = mChild->GetNeckoTarget(); > > + return target.forget(); > > nit: can't return directly mChild->GetNeckoTarget();? > Yes, I think we can. Thanks. > @@ +65,5 @@ > > + return target.forget(); > > + } > > + > > +protected: > > + T *mChild; > > how is the lifetime preserved? > We can only use raw ptr here to avoid ref count cycle. If I am not wrong, child channels should outlive all channel events, so we don't have to worry about the lifetime here? > ::: netwerk/ipc/NeckoTargetHolder.h > @@ +13,5 @@ > > + > > +namespace mozilla { > > +namespace net { > > + > > +class NeckoTargetHolder > > again, no comments. > I'll add in next version. > ::: netwerk/protocol/http/HttpChannelChild.h > @@ +176,5 @@ > > AsyncCall(void (HttpChannelChild::*funcPtr)(), > > nsRunnableMethod<HttpChannelChild> **retval = nullptr) override; > > > > + // Get event target for processing network events. > > + already_AddRefed<nsIEventTarget> GetNeckoTarget() override; > > where is this overridden? Not quite understand your question. It's overridden in http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/f55349994fdac101d121b11dac769f3f17fbec4b/netwerk/protocol/http/HttpChannelChild.cpp#2266.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•7 years ago
|
||
Summary: - Add comments for new classes. - Add an assertion in MainThreadChannelEvent::GetEventTarget() to make sure this should be only called in parent process.
Attachment #8867067 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8868835 -
Flags: review?(honzab.moz)
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•7 years ago
|
||
> ::: media/mtransport/nr_socket_prsock.cpp
> @@ +1973,5 @@
> >
> > + dom::TCPSocketChild* child =
> > + new dom::TCPSocketChild(NS_ConvertUTF8toUTF16(remote_addr),
> > + remote_port,
> > + nullptr);
>
> You may want to check whether this makes sense with the webrtc folks, since
> this code is used for the e10s webrtc implementation.
I think we can use SystemGroup here because nsITCPSocketCallback implemented in nr_socket_prsock.cpp doesn't touch any content script.
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•7 years ago
|
||
Just for safe, I'd like to have a webrtc expert to have a look. :bwc, could you please take a look at this patch? Thanks.
Attachment #8870249 -
Flags: review?(docfaraday)
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•7 years ago
|
||
Hi Bill, I have a question about do we really need to label all IPC actors even if some of them doing nothing in child process? For example, PDataChannelChild [1] doesn't expect to receive any IPC message from parent process. Do we still have to call SetEventTargetForActor brfore sending the constructor message? Thanks. [1] http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/6c2dbacbba1d58b8679cee700fd0a54189e0cf1b/netwerk/ipc/PDataChannel.ipdl
Flags: needinfo?(wmccloskey)
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•7 years ago
|
||
Update the patch since that I didn't add "MOZ_COUNT_CTOR(NeckoTargetHolder)" in NeckoTargetHolder's constructor.
Attachment #8868835 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8868835 -
Flags: review?(honzab.moz)
Attachment #8870376 -
Flags: review?(honzab.moz)
Comment 12•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review] Part 3-1: Use system group's event target for TCPSocketChild's constructor Review of attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Is this going to change what thread calls the various nsITCPSocketCallback functions? Right now we assume that these callbacks happen on the same thread that the TCPSocketChild was created on.
Attachment #8870249 -
Flags: review?(docfaraday)
Updated•7 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(kechang)
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Byron Campen [:bwc] from comment #12) > Comment on attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review] > Part 3-1: Use system group's event target for TCPSocketChild's constructor > > Review of attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Is this going to change what thread calls the various nsITCPSocketCallback > functions? Right now we assume that these callbacks happen on the same > thread that the TCPSocketChild was created on. Yes, you are right. This could change what thread calls nsITCPSocketCallback functions. SystemGroup should only be used when is created on main thread. I'll update the patch and ask you to review again. Thanks.
Flags: needinfo?(kechang)
No, there's no need to label PDataChannel since no messages for it are sent to the content process.
Flags: needinfo?(wmccloskey)
Comment 15•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Kershaw Chang [:kershaw] from comment #6) > > > + T *mChild; > > > > how is the lifetime preserved? > > > > We can only use raw ptr here to avoid ref count cycle. > If I am not wrong, child channels should outlive all channel events, so we > don't have to worry about the lifetime here? Yes. This is all around the IPC code already, so we would already be crashing a lot. > > > + already_AddRefed<nsIEventTarget> GetNeckoTarget() override; > > > > where is this overridden? > > Not quite understand your question. It's overridden in > http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/ > f55349994fdac101d121b11dac769f3f17fbec4b/netwerk/protocol/http/ > HttpChannelChild.cpp#2266. Ah!!! Got it. This is turned by your patch to a virtual method, yes. OK.
Comment 16•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8870376 [details] [diff] [review] Part1: Refactoring for mNeckoTarget and ChannelEvent, v3 Review of attachment 8870376 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nice work, thanks. Sorry for the delay! ::: netwerk/ipc/ChannelEventQueue.h @@ +51,5 @@ > }; > > +// This event is designed to be only used for e10s child channels. > +// The goal is to force the child channel to implement GetNeckoTarget() > +// which should returns a labeled main thread event target so that this should return @@ +77,5 @@ > + } > + > +protected: > + T *mChild; > + remove this blank line please. ::: netwerk/ipc/NeckoTargetHolder.h @@ +21,5 @@ > +public: > + explicit NeckoTargetHolder(nsIEventTarget *aNeckoTarget) > + : mNeckoTarget(aNeckoTarget) > + { > + MOZ_COUNT_CTOR(NeckoTargetHolder); to be honest, if this is always only derived from and all implementers are refcounted via nsisupports macros, then this is not needed.
Attachment #8870376 -
Flags: review?(honzab.moz) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review] Part 3-1: Use system group's event target for TCPSocketChild's constructor (In reply to Byron Campen [:bwc] from comment #12) > Comment on attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review] > Part 3-1: Use system group's event target for TCPSocketChild's constructor > > Review of attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Is this going to change what thread calls the various nsITCPSocketCallback > functions? Right now we assume that these callbacks happen on the same > thread that the TCPSocketChild was created on. According to [1], it looks like TCPSocketChild here is only created on main thread. That means this patch should be fine. :bwc, could you take a look again? Thanks. [1] http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/66d9eb3103e429127c85a7921e16c5a02458a127/media/mtransport/nr_socket_prsock.cpp#2169-2171
Attachment #8870249 -
Flags: review?(docfaraday)
Comment 18•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Kershaw Chang [:kershaw] from comment #17) > Comment on attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review] > Part 3-1: Use system group's event target for TCPSocketChild's constructor > > (In reply to Byron Campen [:bwc] from comment #12) > > Comment on attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review] > > Part 3-1: Use system group's event target for TCPSocketChild's constructor > > > > Review of attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review]: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Is this going to change what thread calls the various nsITCPSocketCallback > > functions? Right now we assume that these callbacks happen on the same > > thread that the TCPSocketChild was created on. > > According to [1], it looks like TCPSocketChild here is only created on main > thread. That means this patch should be fine. > > :bwc, could you take a look again? Thanks. > > [1] > http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/ > 66d9eb3103e429127c85a7921e16c5a02458a127/media/mtransport/nr_socket_prsock. > cpp#2169-2171 No, TCPSocketChild is created here: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/media/mtransport/nr_socket_prsock.cpp?q=nr_socket_prsock.cpp&redirect_type=direct#1974
Updated•7 years ago
|
Attachment #8870249 -
Flags: review?(docfaraday)
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Byron Campen [:bwc] from comment #18) > (In reply to Kershaw Chang [:kershaw] from comment #17) > > Comment on attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review] > > Part 3-1: Use system group's event target for TCPSocketChild's constructor > > > > (In reply to Byron Campen [:bwc] from comment #12) > > > Comment on attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review] > > > Part 3-1: Use system group's event target for TCPSocketChild's constructor > > > > > > Review of attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review]: > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Is this going to change what thread calls the various nsITCPSocketCallback > > > functions? Right now we assume that these callbacks happen on the same > > > thread that the TCPSocketChild was created on. > > > > According to [1], it looks like TCPSocketChild here is only created on main > > thread. That means this patch should be fine. > > > > :bwc, could you take a look again? Thanks. > > > > [1] > > http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/ > > 66d9eb3103e429127c85a7921e16c5a02458a127/media/mtransport/nr_socket_prsock. > > cpp#2169-2171 > > No, TCPSocketChild is created here: > https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/media/mtransport/ > nr_socket_prsock.cpp?q=nr_socket_prsock.cpp&redirect_type=direct#1974 Sorry that I didn't explain clearly before. Yes, TCPSocketChild is created in NrTcpSocketIpc::connect_i at [1]. But io_thread_ is initialized in NrTcpSocketIpc's constructor at [2]. As I said in comment#17, NrTcpSocketIpc is created at [3]. This means that io_thread_ should be main thread so that TCPSocketChild is also created on main thread. Could you correct me if I missed something? Thanks. [1] http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/b318c7dca7392bd16c0b11929f55b1be133f0b31/media/mtransport/nr_socket_prsock.cpp#1974 [2] http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/b318c7dca7392bd16c0b11929f55b1be133f0b31/media/mtransport/nr_socket_prsock.cpp#1690 [3] http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/66d9eb3103e429127c85a7921e16c5a02458a127/media/mtransport/nr_socket_prsock.cpp#2169-2171
Flags: needinfo?(docfaraday)
Comment 20•7 years ago
|
||
Hmm, that is not what I was expecting. In the UDP case io_thread_ is a different thread.
Flags: needinfo?(docfaraday)
Comment 21•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review] Part 3-1: Use system group's event target for TCPSocketChild's constructor Review of attachment 8870249 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: media/mtransport/nr_socket_prsock.cpp @@ +1968,5 @@ > uint16_t remote_port, > const nsACString &local_addr, > uint16_t local_port, > const nsACString &tls_host) { > ASSERT_ON_THREAD(io_thread_); Let's also assert we're on the main thread, and add a comment that this needs to be true because of how we're setting the event target below.
Attachment #8870249 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•7 years ago
|
||
Summary: - Add a new parameter (mainThreadTarget) in nsIUDPSocketChild::bind - In UDPSocket::InitRemote, get an event target and pass it via nsIUDPSocketChild::bind. - Note that in NrUdpSocketIpc, UdpSocketChild is created on sts thread, so it is ok to pass nullptr.
Attachment #8874321 -
Flags: review?(josh)
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•7 years ago
|
||
Summary: - Use a system group event target to label PAltDataOutputStreamChild Thanks.
Attachment #8874323 -
Flags: review?(honzab.moz)
Assignee | ||
Comment 24•7 years ago
|
||
Summary: - Add a new parameter (mainThreadTarget) in StunAddrsRequestChild's constructor - Get an labeled event target from mParent's window and use it.
Attachment #8874324 -
Flags: review?(docfaraday)
Comment 25•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8874323 [details] [diff] [review] Part5 : Label PAltDataOutputStreamChild Review of attachment 8874323 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: netwerk/ipc/NeckoChild.cpp @@ +124,5 @@ > + > + // Label PAltDataOutputStream actor's messages as SystemGroup. > + gNeckoChild->SetEventTargetForActor( > + stream, > + SystemGroup::EventTargetFor(TaskCategory::Other)); can we cast channel to HttpChannelChild and find the target there? The sys group is definitely under-performing here.
Comment 26•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8874321 [details] [diff] [review] Part4: Pass a labeled main thread event target to nsIUDPSocketChild::bind Review of attachment 8874321 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Do we pass a non-null argument to bind in a later patch?
Attachment #8874321 -
Flags: review?(josh) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 27•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Honza Bambas (:mayhemer) from comment #25) > Comment on attachment 8874323 [details] [diff] [review] > Part5 : Label PAltDataOutputStreamChild > > Review of attachment 8874323 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > ::: netwerk/ipc/NeckoChild.cpp > @@ +124,5 @@ > > + > > + // Label PAltDataOutputStream actor's messages as SystemGroup. > > + gNeckoChild->SetEventTargetForActor( > > + stream, > > + SystemGroup::EventTargetFor(TaskCategory::Other)); > > can we cast channel to HttpChannelChild and find the target there? The sys > group is definitely under-performing here. I don't exactly understand "under-performing" you mean, sorry for my bad English. But, I think I can move the code to [1]. I think that's what you'd like to see, right? [1] http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/507743376d1ba753d14ab6b9305b7c6358570be8/netwerk/protocol/http/HttpChannelChild.cpp#2765
Flags: needinfo?(honzab.moz)
Assignee | ||
Comment 28•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Josh Matthews [:jdm] from comment #26) > Comment on attachment 8874321 [details] [diff] [review] > Part4: Pass a labeled main thread event target to nsIUDPSocketChild::bind > > Review of attachment 8874321 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Do we pass a non-null argument to bind in a later patch? Do you mean pass a non-null argument here [1]? If yes, there is no need to do this because UDPSocketChild at [1] is not created on main thread. [1] http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/507743376d1ba753d14ab6b9305b7c6358570be8/media/mtransport/nr_socket_prsock.cpp#1578
Comment 29•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Kershaw Chang [:kershaw] from comment #27) > (In reply to Honza Bambas (:mayhemer) from comment #25) > > Comment on attachment 8874323 [details] [diff] [review] > > Part5 : Label PAltDataOutputStreamChild > > > > Review of attachment 8874323 [details] [diff] [review]: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ::: netwerk/ipc/NeckoChild.cpp > > @@ +124,5 @@ > > > + > > > + // Label PAltDataOutputStream actor's messages as SystemGroup. > > > + gNeckoChild->SetEventTargetForActor( > > > + stream, > > > + SystemGroup::EventTargetFor(TaskCategory::Other)); > > > > can we cast channel to HttpChannelChild and find the target there? The sys > > group is definitely under-performing here. > > I don't exactly understand "under-performing" you mean, sorry for my bad > English. Sorry, it was a shortcut - I meant using a system group for a content delivered as part of a request made by a tab would degrade the DOM scheduling. Using the right target - bound to a tab - is preferred here. > But, I think I can move the code to [1]. I think that's what you'd like to > see, right? Looks like the right place, yes! Thanks. > > [1] > http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/ > 507743376d1ba753d14ab6b9305b7c6358570be8/netwerk/protocol/http/ > HttpChannelChild.cpp#2765
Flags: needinfo?(honzab.moz)
Assignee | ||
Comment 30•7 years ago
|
||
Summary: - Per our discussion, label PAltDataOutputStreamChild in HttpChannelChild by neckoTarget.
Attachment #8874323 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8874323 -
Flags: review?(honzab.moz)
Attachment #8874822 -
Flags: review?(honzab.moz)
Comment 31•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8874822 [details] [diff] [review] Part5 : Label PAltDataOutputStreamChild Review of attachment 8874822 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks!
Attachment #8874822 -
Flags: review?(honzab.moz) → review+
Comment 32•7 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8874324 [details] [diff] [review] Part6: Pass a labeled event target to StunAddrsRequestChild's constructor Review of attachment 8874324 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Out of curiosity, in what cases are the window expected to be null?
Attachment #8874324 -
Flags: review?(docfaraday) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 33•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Byron Campen [:bwc] from comment #32) > Comment on attachment 8874324 [details] [diff] [review] > Part6: Pass a labeled event target to StunAddrsRequestChild's constructor > > Review of attachment 8874324 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Out of curiosity, in what cases are the window expected to be null? If we create PeerConnectionImpl from [1], the window is null. But I have no idea when or why this function will be called. [1] http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/a798ee4fc323f9387b7576dbed177859d29d09b7/media/webrtc/signaling/src/peerconnection/PeerConnectionMedia.cpp#191
Assignee | ||
Comment 34•7 years ago
|
||
Carry r+ and rebase.
Attachment #8867069 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8867085 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8870249 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8870376 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8874321 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8874324 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8874822 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8876594 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 41•7 years ago
|
||
https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=16f4258383a7181618c6683c54ab5747c4b45853
Assignee | ||
Updated•7 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 42•7 years ago
|
||
Pushed by cbook@mozilla.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/0ec77a61f0f2 Part1: Refactoring for mNeckoTarget and ChannelEvent, r=mayhemer https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/c0a3c9dfefd3 Part2: Set event target for WyciwygChannelChild, r=mayhemer https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/5ed01a9fc13c Part3: Set event target for TCPSocketChild and TCPServerSocketChild, r=jdm https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/df1028511939 Part3-1: Use system group's event target for TCPSocketChild's constructor, r=bwc https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/750c2b2dbfb6 Part4: Pass a labeled main thread event target in nsIUDPSocketChild::bind, r=jdm https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/cb9519b41a5f Part5: Label PAltDataOutputStreamChild, r=mayhemer https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/d0c66041660e Part6: Pass a labeled event target to StunAddrsRequestChild's constructor., r=bwc
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 43•7 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0ec77a61f0f2 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c0a3c9dfefd3 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5ed01a9fc13c https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/df1028511939 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/750c2b2dbfb6 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/cb9519b41a5f https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d0c66041660e
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
status-firefox56:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla56
Updated•7 years ago
|
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•