Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > The Condition variables are canonically prone to "spurious wakeups" > and "stolen wakeups".
No, they aren't. Just because POSIX says they are doesn't mean *our* condition variables are the same. Spurious wakeups are an annoyance, and our implementation AFAICT never exhibited them. > From the docs: "Note: Condition variables can be, depending on the > implementation, subject to both spurious wakeups (when wait() returns > without a notify() call) and stolen wakeups (when another thread > acquires the lock before the awoken thread.) For this reason, it is > always necessary to verify the state the thread is waiting for when > wait() returns and optionally repeat the call as often as necessary." Ah, thanks, indeed. Except that... this was added by yourself in 483bbebc57bf, after issue 10260, but *without* being part of the original patch that you uploaded on that issue. So this never got reviewed and was instead sneaked in the docs in a commit of yours. Unless other people disagree, I think this addition should be reverted. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8799> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
