Message162019
| 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31日.20:48:39 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1338497322.26.0.867275361492.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Attached is an updated version of Charles-François's reinit_locks.diff.
Changes:
* Handles RLock by assuming that if self->count != 0 when we acquire
the lock, then the lock must have been reinitialized by PyThread_ReInitLocks().
* Applies existing fork tests for Lock to RLock.
* Fixes capitalization issues with PyThread_ReInitLocks()/PyThread_ReinitLocks().
* Defines PyThread_ReInitLocks() to be empty on non-pthread platforms.
Note that RLock._is_owned() is unreliable after a fork until RLock.acquire() has been called.
Also, no synchronization has been added for the list of locks. Are PyThread_allocate_lock() and PyThread_free_lock() supposed to be safe to call while not holding the GIL? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年05月31日 20:48:43 | sbt | set | recipients:
+ sbt, gregory.p.smith, vinay.sajip, jcea, pitrou, vstinner, nirai, bobbyi, neologix, Giovanni.Bajo, sdaoden, avian, lesha |
| 2012年05月31日 20:48:42 | sbt | set | messageid: <1338497322.26.0.867275361492.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012年05月31日 20:48:41 | sbt | link | issue6721 messages |
| 2012年05月31日 20:48:39 | sbt | create |
|