fix: wrong usage of RLock

common/lru/lrucache.go

@@ -223,6 +223,10 @@ func (c *LruCache[K, V]) Delete(key K) {
 	c.mu.Lock()
 	defer c.mu.Unlock()
 
+	c.delete(key)
+}
+
+func (c *LruCache[K, V]) delete(key K) {
 	if le, ok := c.cache[key]; ok {
 		c.deleteElement(le)
 	}
@@ -255,6 +259,34 @@ func (c *LruCache[K, V]) Clear() error {
 	return nil
 }
 
+// Compute either sets the computed new value for the key or deletes
+// the value for the key. When the delete result of the valueFn function
+// is set to true, the value will be deleted, if it exists. When delete
+// is set to false, the value is updated to the newValue.
+// The ok result indicates whether value was computed and stored, thus, is
+// present in the map. The actual result contains the new value in cases where
+// the value was computed and stored.
+func (c *LruCache[K, V]) Compute(
+	key K,
+	valueFn func(oldValue V, loaded bool) (newValue V, delete bool),
+) (actual V, ok bool) {
+	c.mu.Lock()
+	defer c.mu.Unlock()
+
+	if el := c.get(key); el != nil {
+		actual, ok = el.value, true
+	}
+	if newValue, del := valueFn(actual, ok); del {
+		if ok { // data not in cache, so needn't delete
+			c.delete(key)
+		}
+		return lo.Empty[V](), false
+	} else {
+		c.set(key, newValue)
+		return newValue, true
+	}
+}
+
 type entry[K comparable, V any] struct {
 	key     K
 	value   V

common/queue/queue.go

@@ -59,8 +59,8 @@ func (q *Queue[T]) Copy() []T {
 
 // Len returns the number of items in this queue.
 func (q *Queue[T]) Len() int64 {
-	q.lock.Lock()
-	defer q.lock.Unlock()
+	q.lock.RLock()
+	defer q.lock.RUnlock()
 
 	return int64(len(q.items))
 }

common/utils/callback.go

@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ func NewCallback[T any]() *Callback[T] {
 }
 
 func (c *Callback[T]) Register(item func(T)) io.Closer {
-	c.mutex.RLock()
-	defer c.mutex.RUnlock()
+	c.mutex.Lock()
+	defer c.mutex.Unlock()
 	element := c.list.PushBack(item)
 	return &callbackCloser[T]{
 		element:  element,