From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Spencer Baugh Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Releasing the thread global_lock from the module API Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 14:51:01 -0500 Message-ID: References: <86cysdrja3.fsf@gnu.org> <86a5nhrdv0.fsf@gnu.org> <868r31rbxn.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23430"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:y5dDRCB0/Yhn5T8gPeY3SI3Z5DU= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 01 21:31:18 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rg9XK-0005rt-6Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 01 Mar 2024 21:31:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rg9WO-0002dh-H9; Fri, 01 Mar 2024 15:30:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rg8uW-0003HL-JA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Mar 2024 14:51:12 -0500 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rg8uU-0005aU-Kt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Mar 2024 14:51:12 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rg8uS-000553-JK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Mar 2024 20:51:08 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 15:30:16 -0500 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:316678 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Spencer Baugh >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 14:02:24 -0500 >> >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >> >> > I think this is already possible, see above. I guess I'm missing >> >> > something. >> >> >> >> I don't think it is. How would a module release global_lock, call a C >> >> library function on the current thread, and then re-acquire the global >> >> lock? Can you say how you would do that with the APIs we have today? >> > >> > If a thread releases a global lock, it cannot run the Lisp machine >> > until it re-acquire the global lock. >> >> Yes. But calling a C library function (by some other library not >> related to Emacs but used by the module) does not involve calling into >> the Lisp machine or any Emacs machinery. > > There's very little you can do usefully this way without touching some > aspect of the Lisp machine. Assuming that what you do has some > relevance to the Emacs session, of course. Actually, there is lots of useful stuff that can be done this way. For example, if a C library internally opens a network socket and sends a request to a network service, that does not touch the Lisp machine and so can be done this way. Is that not useful? Or do these touch the Lisp machine in some way I don't know about? Since it's useful for me, I'd like to write a patch which allow modules to do this; would it be considered?