[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Concurrency
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Concurrency |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:41:42 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>>> Also, I think mutex-unlock should throw some kind of error if the mutex
>>> is owned by a different thread. What do you think of that?
>> That doesn't sound useful. There are perfectly valid ways to use mutexes
>> where the locker and the unlocker are not the same thread.
> True... but there are models where it would be a bug, plain and simple.
Bugs happen. It's only a problem if they happen often enough to warrant
the pain of imposing additional constraints. I'd expect most uses of
"same-thread unlock" to be covered by the scoped with-mutex
construct anyway.
> Maybe it should be an option to mutex-unlock?
Let's not add complexity until it's clear that it's needed.
Stefan
- Re: Concurrency, (continued)
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Davis Herring, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Giuseppe Scrivano, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Giuseppe Scrivano, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Ken Raeburn, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: Concurrency, Ken Raeburn, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Giuseppe Scrivano, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/29
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Daniel Colascione, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Stefan Monnier, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/28
- Re: Concurrency, Tom Tromey, 2010/03/28