Use sync/atomic for atomicity about router HOT 2 CLOSED

Hi,

thanks for the feedback on this. This has cause me to do quite a lot more reading around this area, and I think the reason this hasn't been a problem for us is because we're running exclusively on x86/amd64 platforms.

Nevertheless, as this code is not guaranteed to be correct under the Go memory model, I've added a mutex to protect access to this pointer in #67. This seemed to be cleaner than going down the unsafe.Pointer route.

from router.

Since the potential race condition mentioned is now prevented by #67 and there has been no further feedback, I'm going to close this issue.

Thanks for raising this @balasanjay! 👍

from router.