Hello Christian. Nice to see you here. No, it fell dormant and I haven't taken another look. I'll do so again, I have some time now :)
K > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Tismer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 24. desember 2009 11:56 > To: Kristján Valur Jónsson > Cc: Richard Tew; Stefan Reich; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Stackless] Stackless 2.6.2/Win crash with very short > script > > Hi friends, > > was this one resolved, and the thread name chaged? > > cheers - chris > > On 8/13/09 10:51 PM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: > > I don't know. I've uncovered some nastyness in the process. > > Soft switching is fragile with regards to channel refcounting and the > fix I have in mind is very simple. But having it in action actually > showed some other strange behavior that I"m looking at. > > K > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Richard Tew [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: 13. ágúst 2009 20:32 > >> To: Kristján Valur Jónsson > >> Cc: Stefan Reich; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [Stackless] Stackless 2.6.2/Win crash with very short > >> script > >> > >> 2009/8/14 Kristján Valur Jónsson<[email protected]>: > >> > >>> I've more or less given up on this. > >>> The problem The problem is that the engine is in a fragile state > >>> > >> until a soft-switch has completed. This is especially true for a > hard- > >> switch wrapped in a soft switch, i.e. one where a "jump_soft_to_hard > >> has been put on the frame. Until that jump is actually performed, > one > >> cannot switch away from that tasklet. > >> > >>> In effect it means that if a stackless (or semi stackless with > >>> > >> jump_soft_to_hard) jump has been set up but not done, we cannot call > >> switch tasks. And task switching occurs if a reference goes away, > >> which is possible through multiple means in the meantime. > >> > >>> Maybe the best way is to put channels, wich are in such a state as > to > >>> > >> require waking up a tasklet to die, in a special garbage bin, that > is > >> emptied in a safe place on a regular basis. I'll try that next. > >> > >> My worry about the potential fixes you have described for this bug, > >> are that they are top heavy for what they are addressing. Let's be > >> honest here, what we have is a case that crashes that no-one would > >> ever do in production. Making larger fixes than the problem itself, > >> well, I wonder if we are incurring additional codebase complexity > for > >> little benefit. > >> > >> I say let this one sit. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Richard. > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Stackless mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless > > > > > -- > Christian Tismer :^)<mailto:[email protected]> > tismerysoft GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on > Python's > Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9A : *Starship* > http://starship.python.net/ > 14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ > work +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 30 80 90 57 05 > PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 > whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/ > _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
