Message162019
| Author | sbt |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Giovanni.Bajo, avian, bobbyi, gregory.p.smith, jcea, lesha, neologix, nirai, pitrou, sbt, sdaoden, vinay.sajip, vstinner |
| Date | 2012-05-31.20:48:39 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1338497322.26.0.867275361492.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Attached is an updated version of Charles-François's reinit_locks.diff. Changes: * Handles RLock by assuming that if self->count != 0 when we acquire the lock, then the lock must have been reinitialized by PyThread_ReInitLocks(). * Applies existing fork tests for Lock to RLock. * Fixes capitalization issues with PyThread_ReInitLocks()/PyThread_ReinitLocks(). * Defines PyThread_ReInitLocks() to be empty on non-pthread platforms. Note that RLock._is_owned() is unreliable after a fork until RLock.acquire() has been called. Also, no synchronization has been added for the list of locks. Are PyThread_allocate_lock() and PyThread_free_lock() supposed to be safe to call while not holding the GIL? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-05-31 20:48:43 | sbt | set | recipients: + sbt, gregory.p.smith, vinay.sajip, jcea, pitrou, vstinner, nirai, bobbyi, neologix, Giovanni.Bajo, sdaoden, avian, lesha |
| 2012-05-31 20:48:42 | sbt | set | messageid: <1338497322.26.0.867275361492.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012-05-31 20:48:41 | sbt | link | issue6721 messages |
| 2012-05-31 20:48:39 | sbt | create | |