Message131732
Sbt: I re-read the code and while I still maintain that the evaluation in line 50 is meaningless, I agree that the worst that can happen is an incorrect timeout.
It is probably harmless because this state is only encountered for timeout==0, and it is only incorrect in the face of lock contention, while a 0 timeout provides no guarantees between two threads.
So, I suggest a change in the comments: Do not claim that the value is never an underestimate, and explain how falsely returning a WAIT_TIMEOUT is safe and only occurs when the lock is heavily contented.
Sorry for being so nitpicky but having this stuff correct is crucial. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-03-22 09:36:22 | kristjan.jonsson | set | recipients:
+ kristjan.jonsson, loewis, pitrou, tim.golden, brian.curtin, sbt |
2011-03-22 09:36:22 | kristjan.jonsson | set | messageid: <1300786582.09.0.224024160507.issue11618@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2011-03-22 09:36:21 | kristjan.jonsson | link | issue11618 messages |
2011-03-22 09:36:21 | kristjan.jonsson | create | |
|