Hi Greg,
Greg Ewing canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
> The way I thought this was supposed to work is that the
> buffer is *always* locked while the client is accessing
> it, the only choice being whether it's a read-only or
> read-write lock.
I don't think there should always be a lock in the sense th
Greg Ewing canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
> The way I thought this was supposed to work is that the
> buffer is *always* locked while the client is accessing
> it, the only choice being whether it's a read-only or
> read-write lock.
Thinking about this some more while updating the PEP:
This scheme ha
Stefan Behnel wrote:
I don't think there should always be a lock in the sense that the requestor is
the only permitted accessor.
No, but there's always a lock in the sense that the provider
is not allowed to move the memory while the buffer is in
use.
As for the other forms of locking, I'm sti
Stefan Behnel wrote:
So you'd always have to release your own read buffer before acquiring a
write buffer
Yes, you really want to be able to upgrade your own lock
from a read lock to a write lock, which means the provider
has to keep track of who the lock holder is somehow.
The more I think ab
