From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tom Tromey Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Concurrency Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:37:51 -0600 Message-ID: References: <27349166.post@talk.nabble.com> <4B7564C7.1010309@swipnet.se> <27564728.post@talk.nabble.com> <4B756FB7.3050202@swipnet.se> <87k4ui4gik.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <27566385.post@talk.nabble.com> <87wryi2sjd.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <27585994.post@talk.nabble.com> <87k4ucdmwh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87d3zweq4e.fsf@master.homenet> <87y6hg1h4a.fsf@thor.thematica.it> <87tys3j9fa.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87eij6tqmu.fsf@lifelogs.com> <49707.130.55.132.67.1269807922.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <87oci8rwtw.fsf@gnu.org> <87aatrigux.fsf@thor.thematica.it> Reply-To: Tom Tromey NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269877280 20882 80.91.229.12 (29 Mar 2010 15:41:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:41:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ted Zlatanov , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Giuseppe Scrivano Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 29 17:41:10 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NwH5J-0003Um-HZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:41:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44414 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NwH5H-0005EW-M3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:40:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NwH2U-00041y-2h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:38:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34791 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NwH2R-00040B-L4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:38:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NwH2P-0008U8-2X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:38:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5706) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NwH2M-0008Sk-Jm; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:37:58 -0400 Original-Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2TFbtDq020778 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:37:55 -0400 Original-Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2TFbsnJ015966; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:37:54 -0400 Original-Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2TFbp8N026105; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:37:51 -0400 Original-Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 410F9378212; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:37:51 -0600 (MDT) X-Attribution: Tom In-Reply-To: <87aatrigux.fsf@thor.thematica.it> (Giuseppe Scrivano's message of "Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:04:22 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 10.5.11.11 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:122846 Archived-At: Giuseppe> I have changed how `make-mutex' works. Now it accepts an Giuseppe> optional argument; if the argument is non nil then a recursive Giuseppe> mutex is created, by default it is nil. By default a normal Giuseppe> mutex (non recursive) is created. I think it would be better to have all mutexes be recursive, because it is safer. Also, I think mutex-unlock should throw some kind of error if the mutex is owned by a different thread. What do you think of that? Tom