Author ncoghlan
Recipients JohanAR, davin, gvanrossum, itamarst, ncoghlan, pitrou, python-dev, rhettinger, sbt, serhiy.storchaka, tim.peters, yselivanov, zzzeek
Date 2017-08-19.10:09:17
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1503137357.75.0.0790236421215.issue14976@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Would it be feasible to change the behaviour of non-reentrant locks such that:

1. They *do* keep track of the owning thread
2. Trying to acquire them again when the current thread already has them locked raises RuntimeError instead of deadlocking the way it does now?

Then they could sensibly expose the same "_is_locked()" API as RLock, while still disallowing reentrancy by default.
History
Date User Action Args
2017-08-19 10:09:17ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, gvanrossum, tim.peters, rhettinger, pitrou, zzzeek, python-dev, sbt, serhiy.storchaka, JohanAR, yselivanov, itamarst, davin
2017-08-19 10:09:17ncoghlansetmessageid: <1503137357.75.0.0790236421215.issue14976@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-08-19 10:09:17ncoghlanlinkissue14976 messages
2017-08-19 10:09:17ncoghlancreate