>>>>> "Paul McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (PM) wrote:
>PM> "Jonathan Amsterdam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >PM> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> If you don't want to call it deadlock, fine, but the program execution >>> I describe will make no progress to the end of time. Thread 2 can never >>> put anything in the queue, because Thread 1 holds M, and Thread 1 will >>> never release M because that can only happen if someone puts something >>> on the queue. >>> >PM> Ah, I get it now, and yes as you describe it, this is a deadlock. But why >PM> do you need both mutex M and a Queue, then? You should release M before >PM> calling Queue.get(). Then if you need to, you should reacquire it >PM> afterward. What Jonathan says is that in his example M and the mutex for the Queue should be the same to solve the problem. And that the Queue API should allow you to do that. I think he is right. -- Piet van Oostrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] Private email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
