Message161953
| Author | sbt |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Giovanni.Bajo, avian, bobbyi, gregory.p.smith, jcea, lesha, neologix, nirai, pitrou, sbt, sdaoden, vinay.sajip, vstinner |
| Date | 2012-05-30.14:04:45 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1338386686.28.0.661690464175.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> > Is there any particular reason not to merge Charles-François's reinit_locks.diff? > > > > Reinitialising all locks to unlocked after a fork seems the only sane option. > > I agree with this. > I haven't looked at the patch very closely. I think perhaps each lock > could have an optional callback for specific code to be run after > forking, but that may come in another patch. > (this would allow to make e.g. the C RLock fork-safe) An alternative way of handling RLock.acquire() would be to always start by trying a non-blocking acquire while holding the GIL: if this succeeds and self->rlock_count != 0 then we can assume that the lock was cleared by PyThread_ReinitLocks(). |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-05-30 14:04:46 | sbt | set | recipients: + sbt, gregory.p.smith, vinay.sajip, jcea, pitrou, vstinner, nirai, bobbyi, neologix, Giovanni.Bajo, sdaoden, avian, lesha |
| 2012-05-30 14:04:46 | sbt | set | messageid: <1338386686.28.0.661690464175.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012-05-30 14:04:45 | sbt | link | issue6721 messages |
| 2012-05-30 14:04:45 | sbt | create | |