Message131676
Antoine: I agree, the semaphore is the quick and robust solution.
sbt: I see your point. Still, I think we still may have a flaw: The statement that (owned-timeouts) is never an under-estimate isn't true on modern architectures, I think. The order of the atomic decrement operations in the code means nothing and cannot be depended on to guarantee such a claim: The thread doing the reading may see the individual updates in any order, and so the estimate may be an over- or an underestimate.
It would fix this and simplify things a lot to take the special case for timeout==0 out of the code. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-03-21 17:16:23 | kristjan.jonsson | set | recipients:
+ kristjan.jonsson, loewis, pitrou, tim.golden, brian.curtin, sbt |
2011-03-21 17:16:23 | kristjan.jonsson | set | messageid: <1300727783.02.0.0187407556222.issue11618@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2011-03-21 17:16:19 | kristjan.jonsson | link | issue11618 messages |
2011-03-21 17:16:18 | kristjan.jonsson | create | |
|