[FLINK-40522][network] Deduplicate RecoveryCheckpointBarrier sentinel helpers shared by LocalInputChannel and RemoteInputChannel - #29054
Open
1996fanrui wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
… helpers shared by LocalInputChannel and RemoteInputChannel
Collaborator
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What is the purpose of the change
LocalInputChannelandRemoteInputChanneleach defined a byte-identical pair of stateless static helpersfor the checkpointing-during-recovery sentinel protocol (
releaseRetainedBuffersandasRecoveryCheckpointBarrier). Keeping two copies invites silent drift. This extracts them into one sharedpackage-private class; it is a pure move with no behavior change.
Brief change log
releaseRetainedBuffersandasRecoveryCheckpointBarrierinto a new package-privateRecoveryCheckpointBarrierUtils; both channels delegate. The per-channelcollectPreRecoveryBarrieris intentionally left as-is (the two walk different queue types).Verifying this change
This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage (a pure move, no behavior change).
Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:
@Public(Evolving): noDocumentation
Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?