On Sunday 31 August 2014 05:41 AM, Daniel Hahler wrote:
This must be something else, given the fact that the timestamps are
same.
Isn't this just because two processes get started simultaneously?
And one of these processes then finds that the state needs not to get
changed (after waiting
This must be something else, given the fact that the timestamps are
same.
Isn't this just because two processes get started simultaneously?
And one of these processes then finds that the state needs not to get
changed (after waiting for the lock).
--
You received this bug notification because
