Re: [PATCH] rust: sync: add lazy initialization methods to SetOnce

[Andreas Hindborg]

"Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 11:26:11AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 12:10:16PM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> > "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >
>> > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 09:27:17PM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> > >> Add methods to get a reference to the contained value or populate the
>> > >> SetOnce if empty. The new `as_ref_or_populate` method accepts a value
>> > >> directly, while `as_ref_or_populate_with` accepts a fallible closure,
>> > >> allowing for lazy initialization that may fail. Both methods spin-wait
>> > >> if another thread is concurrently initializing the container.
>> > >>
>> > >> Also add `populate_with` which takes a fallible closure and serves as
>> > >> the implementation basis for the other populate methods.
>> > >>
>> > >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >
>> > >> +    /// Get a reference to the contained object, or populate the [`SetOnce`]
>> > >> +    /// with the value returned by `callable` and return a reference to that
>> > >> +    /// object.
>> > >> +    pub fn as_ref_or_populate_with(&self, callable: impl FnOnce() -> Result<T>) -> Result<&T> {
>> > >> +        if !self.populate_with(callable)? {
>> > >> +            while self.init.load(Acquire) != 2 {
>> > >> +                core::hint::spin_loop();
>> > >> +            }
>> > >
>> > > We should not be implementing our own spinlocks.
>> >
>> > That is a great proverb. I'd be happy to receive a suggestion on an
>> > alternate approach for this particular context.
>>
>> You can add a spinlock to SetOnce. Like I mentioned previously [1],
>> support for waiting will require the addition of extra fields.

Thanks, I'll be sure to take a look again.

>
> By the way, back then I suggested renaming it from OnceLock to SetOnce
> because you did not support waiting for the value to be populated, and
> you said you didn't need that. If you add that feature, then we should
> rename it back to OnceLock, or create a new type OnceLock for users who
> need that additional feature.

That is fair. This is a different use case than the original one though.
I think we should keep this as one type for code reuse, but I am fine
with renaming to something that describe the usage better.


Best regards,
Andreas Hindborg