Message161405
| Author |
sbt |
| Recipients |
Giovanni.Bajo, avian, bobbyi, gregory.p.smith, jcea, lesha, neologix, nirai, pitrou, sbt, sdaoden, vinay.sajip, vstinner |
| Date |
2012年05月23日.12:49:07 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1337777348.14.0.157411114282.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> (1) Good catch. I suspect that this could be mitigated even if we cared
> about LinuxThreads. I haven't looked, but there's got to be a way to
> determine if we are a thread or a fork child.
Using a generation count would probably work just as well as the PID: main
process has generation 0, children have generation 1, grandchildren have
generation 2, ...
> (2) I think I didn't explain my idea very well. I don't mean that we
> should release *all* locks on fork. That will end in disaster, as
> Charles-François amply explained.
So what are you suggesting? That a lock of the default type should raise
an error if you try to acquire it when it has been acquired in a previous
process? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年05月23日 12:49:08 | sbt | set | recipients:
+ sbt, gregory.p.smith, vinay.sajip, jcea, pitrou, vstinner, nirai, bobbyi, neologix, Giovanni.Bajo, sdaoden, avian, lesha |
| 2012年05月23日 12:49:08 | sbt | set | messageid: <1337777348.14.0.157411114282.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012年05月23日 12:49:07 | sbt | link | issue6721 messages |
| 2012年05月23日 12:49:07 | sbt | create |
|