STINNER Victor <victor.stin...@haypocalc.com> added the comment: rlock_acquire_doc: "(...) return None once the lock is acquired". That's wrong, acquire() always return a boolean (True or False).
rlock_release(): Is the assert(self->rlock_count > 0); really required? You're checking its value few lines before. rlock_acquire_restore(): raise an error if the lock acquire failed, whereas rlock_acquire() doesn't. Why not raising an error in rlock_acquire() (especially if blocking is True)? Or if the error can never occur, remove the error checking in rlock_acquire_restore(). rlock_acquire_restore(): (maybe) set owner to 0 if count is 0. rlock_release_save(): may also reset self->rlock_owner to 0, as rlock_release(). rlock_new(): why not reusing type instead of Py_TYPE(self) in "Py_TYPE(self)->tp_free(self)"? __exit__: rlock_release() is defined as __exit__() with METH_VARARGS, but it has no argument. Can it be a problem? Anything, thanks for the faster RLock! If your patch is commited, you can reconsider #3618 (possible deadlock in python IO implementation). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3001> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
