Message202734
| Author |
vstinner |
| Recipients |
neologix, sbt, vstinner |
| Date |
2013年11月13日.10:19:59 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1384338000.27.0.0413276205338.issue19565@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
"For Vista and later versions of Windows these warnings are presumably unnecessary since CancelIoEx() is used."
As close() on regular files, I would prefer to call explicitly cancel() to control exactly when the overlapped operation is cancelled. Can't you fix multiprocessing and/or the unit test to ensure that all overlapped operations are completed or cancelled?
close() does flush buffers and so may fail. Is it the same for CancelIo/CancelIoEx? In the official documentation, only one error case is described: "If this function cannot find a request to cancel, the return value is 0 (zero), and GetLastError returns ERROR_NOT_FOUND."
The warning is useful because it may be a real bug in the code. I also like ResourceWarning("unclosed file/socket ...") warnings. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2013年11月13日 10:20:00 | vstinner | set | recipients:
+ vstinner, neologix, sbt |
| 2013年11月13日 10:20:00 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1384338000.27.0.0413276205338.issue19565@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013年11月13日 10:20:00 | vstinner | link | issue19565 messages |
| 2013年11月13日 10:19:59 | vstinner | create |
|