Message131732
| Author |
kristjan.jonsson |
| Recipients |
brian.curtin, kristjan.jonsson, loewis, pitrou, sbt, tim.golden |
| Date |
2011年03月22日.09:36:21 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.0010715504 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1300786582.09.0.224024160507.issue11618@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Sbt: I re-read the code and while I still maintain that the evaluation in line 50 is meaningless, I agree that the worst that can happen is an incorrect timeout.
It is probably harmless because this state is only encountered for timeout==0, and it is only incorrect in the face of lock contention, while a 0 timeout provides no guarantees between two threads.
So, I suggest a change in the comments: Do not claim that the value is never an underestimate, and explain how falsely returning a WAIT_TIMEOUT is safe and only occurs when the lock is heavily contented.
Sorry for being so nitpicky but having this stuff correct is crucial. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2011年03月22日 09:36:22 | kristjan.jonsson | set | recipients:
+ kristjan.jonsson, loewis, pitrou, tim.golden, brian.curtin, sbt |
| 2011年03月22日 09:36:22 | kristjan.jonsson | set | messageid: <1300786582.09.0.224024160507.issue11618@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011年03月22日 09:36:21 | kristjan.jonsson | link | issue11618 messages |
| 2011年03月22日 09:36:21 | kristjan.jonsson | create |
|