rust
/
book
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/book
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Fix spelling mistakes, update dictionary

This commit is contained in:
Carol (Nichols || Goulding) 2022-05-11 21:23:48 -04:00
parent 79e999a2e2
commit b723bcd9ec
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: E907EE5A736F87D4
2 changed files with 11 additions and 7 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
ci/dictionary.txt
View File

@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ Bors
BorrowMutError
BoxMeUp
BTreeSet
BufRead
BufReader
BuildHasher
Cacher
cacher
@ -120,6 +122,7 @@ dereferences
dereferencing
DerefMut
DeriveInput
Dest
destructor
destructure
destructured
@ -210,6 +213,7 @@ Hoare
Hola
homogenous
html
http
https
hyperoptimize
hypotheticals

14
src/ch20-03-graceful-shutdown-and-cleanup.md
View File

@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ for the first thread to finish.
To fix this problem, we’ll need a change in the the `ThreadPool` `drop`
implementation and then a change in the `Worker` loop.
First, we’ll change the `Threadpool` `drop` implementation to explicitly drop
First, we’ll change the `ThreadPool` `drop` implementation to explicitly drop
the `sender` before waiting for the threads to finish. Listing 20-23 shows the
changes to `ThreadPool` to explicitly drop `sender`. We use the same `Option`
and `take` technique as we did with the thread to be able to move `sender` out
@ -199,12 +199,12 @@ tells them to shut down. The workers each print a message when they disconnect,
and then the thread pool calls `join` to wait for each worker thread to finish.
Notice one interesting aspect of this particular execution: the `ThreadPool`
droppend the `sender`, and before any worker received an error, we tried to
join worker 0. Worker 0 had not yet gotten an error from `recv`, so the main
thread blocked waiting for worker 0 to finish. In the meantime, worker 3
received a job and then all threads received an error. When worker 0 finished,
the main thread waited for the rest of the workers to finish. At that point,
they had all exited their loops and stopped.
dropped the `sender`, and before any worker received an error, we tried to join
worker 0. Worker 0 had not yet gotten an error from `recv`, so the main thread
blocked waiting for worker 0 to finish. In the meantime, worker 3 received a
job and then all threads received an error. When worker 0 finished, the main
thread waited for the rest of the workers to finish. At that point, they had
all exited their loops and stopped.
Congrats! We’ve now completed our project; we have a basic web server that uses
a thread pool to respond asynchronously. We’re able to perform a graceful