-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[backport to 3.5] bpo-27122: Fix comment to point to correct issue number (#47) #50
Conversation
It took me quite a bit to figure out what this was referring to, since the given issue number is wrong, and the original commit message I found through git blame lists a different, also wrong issue number... see https://bugs.python.org/issue27122#msg279449 (cherry picked from commit af88e7e)
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 3.5 #50 +/- ##
======================================
Coverage ? 82.37%
======================================
Files ? 1427
Lines ? 350948
Branches ? 0
======================================
Hits ? 289099
Misses ? 61849
Partials ? 0
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Thanks for the approvals, Mariatta. GitHub overwrote the original author's name again: c6d2f49 |
Once the threads object queue is empty, other threads may explicitly merge reference counts immediately. It's no longer safe for the original thread to do RC operations because of races with accesses to ob_ref_local. This ensures that the queue is empty when it's removed from the hashtable mapping thread-id to queue. There are still other RC operations that can happen during thread destruction, so the call to _Py_queue_destroy will probably need to be moved. See #50
A partially initialized thread may have an entry in the interpreter without a corresponding entry in the biased-refcounting hashtable. See #50
Now reads: `The PR then needs to be backported manually.`
* Added a config for dependabot. * Update features list for dependabot. Co-authored-by: KOLANICH <kolan_n@mail.ru>
It took me quite a bit to figure out what this was referring to,
since the given issue number is wrong, and the original commit
message I found through git blame lists a different, also wrong
issue number... see https://bugs.python.org/issue27122#msg279449
(cherry picked from commit af88e7e)