Author sbt
Recipients asksol, brandon-rhodes, cool-RR, dholth, jnoller, neologix, numbernine, pitrou, rcoyner, santoso.wijaya, sbt, vsekhar
Date 2011-12-21.15:57:23
SpamBayes Score 4.49085e-14
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1324483044.86.0.34425591672.issue8713@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> I think this is indeed useful, but I'm tempted to go further and say we 
> should make this the default - and only - behavior. This will probably 
> break existing code that accidentaly relied the fact that the 
> implementation uses a bare fork(), but i'd say it's worth it:

I'm not convinced about making it the default behaviour, and certainly not the only one.

I have a working patch which ensures that leaked semaphores get cleaned up on exit.  However, I think to add proper tests for the patch, test_multiprocessing needs to be refactored.  Maybe we could end up with

multiprocessing_common.py
test_multiprocessing_processes_fork.py
test_multiprocessing_processes_nofork.py
test_multiprocessing_manager_fork.py
test_multiprocessing_manager_nofork.py
test_multiprocessing_threads.py
test_multiprocessing_others.py

The actual unittests would be in multiprocessing_common.py and test_multiprocessing_others.py.  The other files would run the unittests in multiprocessing_common.py using different configurations.

Thoughts?
History
Date User Action Args
2011-12-21 15:57:24sbtsetrecipients: + sbt, pitrou, jnoller, rcoyner, asksol, cool-RR, dholth, brandon-rhodes, neologix, santoso.wijaya, numbernine, vsekhar
2011-12-21 15:57:24sbtsetmessageid: <1324483044.86.0.34425591672.issue8713@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-12-21 15:57:24sbtlinkissue8713 messages
2011-12-21 15:57:23sbtcreate