slock | High-performance distributed sync service and atomic DB | Reactive Programming library

Only the author can say why the choice was made.

A single mov dword [sLock],0 would work fine; and an xchg eax, [sLock] (which has an implied lock) is likely to be more expensive (for both performance and code size).

All of the example's code is awful (e.g. no pause in the spinLock routine where it should be used despite having pause in places where it shouldn't be used at all); and their choice of example isn't good either.

Note: using spinlocks in user-space is "almost never" sane because the OS may do a task switch after you acquire a lock but before you release it, causing all other tasks to waste a massive amount of CPU time spinning with no hope of acquiring the lock.

I've done it like Milag sugested in the comments:

a signal could trigger activity in the other proc; if you need a block of data as well, maybe use shared memory or R/W with a named pipe

What I see from your code:

1. It seems that current version of DB on device (before migration) is 12.
2. According to this:

I would recommend using async/await

1. Create an @Entity Notice which is your data type to be stored in your Room DB.
2. Create a View Model which is attached to your Activity/Fragment where you need to show this list.
3. Use your ViewModel to store the list from API into your Room DB.
4. Create a LiveData which observes on the DB and sends the updated list to the other view.

Code for Saving Data in DB. This needs to be run on Background Thread.

Finally, I solve by myself. I post the solution just to help anybody that in the future will look for a similar situation. I mistake to retrieve the iv array in the encrypt method, I was generating another iv vector instead of using the one contained in secretKeys.

When using fallbackToDestructiveMigration, it only destroys (drops the tables and recreates them) if there is not a defined migration for the migration so you could add a 2 to 3 Migration.

That is, if a Migration is provided then it is used and bypasses fallback/destruction.

An alternative, which is recommended, is to use fallbacktodestructivemigrationfrom, this can be used to define specific missing migrations where fallback is to be applied.

e.g. you could use .fallbackToDestructiveMigrationFrom(1,7)

• 1 to allow destructive from 1 to 2
• 7 to allow destructive from 7 to 8 (added just to show that multiple start versions can be provided)
• other's 2 to 3, 3 to 4 etc will need a Migration.
• Note that this is more specific, so if a Migration for 1 to 2 or 7 to 8 is provided an exception will result.

I think you are missing this bit of WFE documentation:

If the Event Register is set, WFE clears it and returns immediately.

In the "race" you describe WFE will get executed, but will return immediately, then while loop will exit.

This is a bug. A fix will be available in WorkManager 2.1.0-rc01 later this week.