[Patches] [ python-Patches-711835 ] Removing unnecessary lock operations

[SourceForge.net]

Patches item #711835, was opened at 2003-03-29 17:12
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=711835&group_id=5470

Category: Core (C code)
Group: Python 2.3
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Mihai Ibanescu (misa)
>Assigned to: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Summary: Removing unnecessary lock operations

Initial Comment:
PyThread_acquire_lock can be further optimized to do
less locking on the global lock mutex.

Original patch location:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86281

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2003-03-31 07:25

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627

There are plans to provide Python 2.2.3. I see no problem
applying it to 2.2.2, as there shouldn't be any change in
visible behaviour.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Mihai Ibanescu (misa)
Date: 2003-03-31 05:59

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=205865

Also, this happens in 2.2.2 as well (the patch in Red Hat's
bugzilla is against 2.2.2 actually). Is there a plan to
release a 2.2.3? Is there value in backporting the patch?
(should apply cleanly on 2.2.2).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Neal Norwitz (nnorwitz)
Date: 2003-03-31 00:19

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=33168

_POSIX_SEMAPHORES aren't used if
HAVE_BROKEN_POSIX_SEMAPHORES is defined.  This currently
occurs on Solaris 8 (at least).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Tim Peters (tim_one)
Date: 2003-03-31 00:11

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=31435

Looks fine to me too.  Since Python switched to using 
semaphores on Linux for 2.3, it's unclear that there's a 
system that uses the condvar code anymore.  How will this 
get tested?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2003-03-30 18:49

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627

This looks reasonable to me, but I may be missing something.

Tim, can you see a problem with that code?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=711835&group_id=5470