Message304716
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
Birne94, Connor.Wolf, Giovanni.Bajo, Winterflower, bobbyi, dan.oreilly, davin, emptysquare, forest_atq, gregory.p.smith, ionelmc, jcea, lesha, neologix, nirai, nirs, pitrou, sbt, sdaoden, tshepang, vinay.sajip, vstinner |
| Date |
2017年10月21日.17:12:00 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1508605920.46.0.213398074469.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Oh, I forgot that IO buffered objects also have a lock. So we would have to special-case those as well, unless we take the generic approach...
A problem with the generic approach is that it would leave higher-level synchronization objects such as RLock, Event etc. in an inconsistent state. Not to mention the case where the lock is taken by the thread calling fork()... |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2017年10月21日 17:12:00 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, gregory.p.smith, vinay.sajip, jcea, nirs, vstinner, nirai, forest_atq, ionelmc, bobbyi, neologix, Giovanni.Bajo, sdaoden, tshepang, sbt, lesha, emptysquare, dan.oreilly, davin, Connor.Wolf, Winterflower, Birne94 |
| 2017年10月21日 17:12:00 | pitrou | set | messageid: <1508605920.46.0.213398074469.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017年10月21日 17:12:00 | pitrou | link | issue6721 messages |
| 2017年10月21日 17:12:00 | pitrou | create |
|