➜
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
Created on 2006-02-15 22:45 by ellisj, last changed 2022-04-11 14:56 by admin. This issue is now closed.
| Files | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| File name | Uploaded | Description | Edit | |
| listdir-threads.diff | georg.brandl, 2006-02-18 11:13 | |||
| Messages (10) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg27531 - (view) | Author: Jonathan Ellis (ellisj) | Date: 2006-02-15 22:45 | |
posix_listdir in posixmodule.c does not release the global interpreter lock, blocking all other threads for the duration of the call. |
|||
| msg27532 - (view) | Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) *  |
Date: 2006-02-18 11:13 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=1188172 Attaching a patch. Please check. |
|||
| msg27533 - (view) | Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * |
Date: 2006-03-03 17:48 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=21627 The patch looks fine. Please apply. |
|||
| msg27534 - (view) | Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * |
Date: 2006-03-07 12:48 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=849994 Committed as rev. 42884. |
|||
| msg27535 - (view) | Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2006-03-07 21:09 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=6380 So the patch is broken because there's a continue in the do-while-loop that jumps to the "while (result)" test without setting result. Fixing this by adding a label and a goto (in two places!) creates awful spaghetti code. Before somebody spends more time refactoring such hairy code, I'd like to see a better motivation; the motivation currently provided is a bit thin. Are there use cases where this call takes a long time? |
|||
| msg27536 - (view) | Author: Jonathan Ellis (ellisj) | Date: 2006-03-07 22:36 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=657828 My original use case is on a server back end with fairly busy disks. It's not unusual for listdir to take 100ms. That's a relatively long time to shut down the rest of the system. |
|||
| msg27537 - (view) | Author: Jim Jewett (jimjjewett) | Date: 2006-03-07 23:48 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=764593 I think the spaghetti was already there. The gotos can be removed by just reversing the logic (if ! (...)) The XXX comment complains about four versions, but I count either three (windows without opendir, OS2, everything else) or five (the non-OS2 versions are split for unicode). The code getting skipped is repeated because the logic for skipping "." and ".." is repeated four times. (There would be another goto, if the OS2 case allowed threads.) |
|||
| msg27538 - (view) | Author: Jim Jewett (jimjjewett) | Date: 2006-03-07 23:52 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=764593 I think the spaghetti was already there. The gotos can be removed by just reversing the logic (if ! (...)) The XXX comment complains about four versions, but I count either three (windows without opendir, OS2, everything else) or five (the non-OS2 versions are split for unicode). The code getting skipped is repeated because the logic for skipping "." and ".." is repeated four times. (There would be another goto, if the OS2 case allowed threads.) |
|||
| msg27539 - (view) | Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2006-03-08 04:07 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=6380 Well, the difference is that before the patch was applied it worked, and now it's broken. So somebody please roll it back; *then* we can think of a proper fix and review it properly. |
|||
| msg27540 - (view) | Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * |
Date: 2006-03-08 07:47 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=849994 I had already fixed my broken patch with "spaghetti" shortly after Thomas' comment. Martin has now refactored without goto, so I think you'll be content now ;-) |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2022-04-11 14:56:15 | admin | set | github: 42908 |
| 2006-02-15 22:45:39 | ellisj | create | |