Message94115
| Author |
gregory.p.smith |
| Recipients |
gregory.p.smith, pitrou |
| Date |
2009年10月16日.00:24:03 |
| SpamBayes Score |
2.5320967e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<52dc1c820910151723h7c77ee3ctb1d99302766dce4f@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1255630552.33.0.974698283953.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@free.fr> added the comment:
>
> Rather than having a kind of global module registry, locks could keep
> track of what was the last PID, and reinitialize themselves if it changed.
> This is assuming getpid() is fast :-)
Locks can't blindly release themselves because they find themselves
running in another process.
If anything if a lock is held and finds itself running in a new
process any attempt to use the lock should raise an exception so that
the bug is noticed.
I'm not sure a PID check is good enough. old linux using linuxthreads
had a different pid for every thread, current linux with NPTL is more
like other oses with the same pid for all threads. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2009年10月16日 00:24:09 | gregory.p.smith | set | recipients:
+ gregory.p.smith, pitrou |
| 2009年10月16日 00:24:04 | gregory.p.smith | link | issue6721 messages |
| 2009年10月16日 00:24:03 | gregory.p.smith | create |
|