Message200789
| Author |
sbt |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, DLitz, aliles, amaury.forgeotdarc, asvetlov, christian.heimes, georg.brandl, grahamd, gregory.p.smith, jcea, lemburg, neologix, pitrou, sbt, twouters, vstinner |
| Date |
2013年10月21日.14:41:44 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1382366504.66.0.993376755414.issue16500@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> - now that FDs are non-inheritable by default, fork locks around
> subprocess and multiprocessing shouldn't be necessary anymore? What
> other use cases does the fork-lock have?
CLOEXEC fds will still be inherited by forked children.
> - the current implementation keeps hard-references to the functions
> passed: so if one isn't careful, you can end up easily with a lot of
> objects kept alive just because of those references, which can be a
> problem
True, but you could make the same complaint about atexit.register().
One can fairly easily create something like weakref.finalize which uses atfork but is smart about not creating hard refs. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2013年10月21日 14:41:44 | sbt | set | recipients:
+ sbt, lemburg, twouters, georg.brandl, gregory.p.smith, jcea, amaury.forgeotdarc, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, grahamd, Arfrever, asvetlov, neologix, aliles, DLitz |
| 2013年10月21日 14:41:44 | sbt | set | messageid: <1382366504.66.0.993376755414.issue16500@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013年10月21日 14:41:44 | sbt | link | issue16500 messages |
| 2013年10月21日 14:41:44 | sbt | create |
|