Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Jesse Noller <jnoller <at> gmail.com> writes: >> I don't see the need for the change from fork as of yet (for >> multiprocessing) and I am leery to change the internal implementation >> and semantics right now, or anytime soon. I'd be interested in seeing >> the patch, but if the concern is that global threading objects could >> be left in the state that they're in at the time of the fork(), I >> think people know that or we can easily document this fact. > > If Pascal provides a patch I think it would really be good to consider it. > Not being able to mix threads and multiprocessing is a potentially annoying > wart.
I don't know what spawnl is supposed to do, but it really sounds like the wrong solution. Instead, we should aim to make Python fork-safe. If the primary concern is that locks get inherited, we should change the Python locks so that they get auto-released on fork (unless otherwise specified on lock creation). This may sound like an uphill battle, but if there was a smart and easy solution to the problem, POSIX would be providing it. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
