Message300581
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | JohanAR, davin, gvanrossum, itamarst, ncoghlan, pitrou, python-dev, rhettinger, sbt, serhiy.storchaka, tim.peters, yselivanov, zzzeek |
| Date | 2017-08-19.12:05:56 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <7b84a937-674c-25bf-9655-108654d31cfb@free.fr> |
| In-reply-to | <1503137357.75.0.0790236421215.issue14976@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Le 19/08/2017 à 12:09, Nick Coghlan a écrit : > > Would it be feasible to change the behaviour of non-reentrant locks such that: > > 1. They *do* keep track of the owning thread Yes. > 2. Trying to acquire them again when the current thread already has them locked raises RuntimeError instead of deadlocking the way it does now? No. It's not a deadlock, since you can release a Lock from another thread. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2017-08-19 12:05:56 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, gvanrossum, tim.peters, rhettinger, ncoghlan, zzzeek, python-dev, sbt, serhiy.storchaka, JohanAR, yselivanov, itamarst, davin |
| 2017-08-19 12:05:56 | pitrou | link | issue14976 messages |
| 2017-08-19 12:05:56 | pitrou | create | |