SASADA Koichi <ko1 / atdot.net> wrote:
> On 2017/04/27 8:58, Eric Wong wrote:
> > I am looking to replace lock_func in thread_sync.c with
> > native_sleep or similar.  This is to reduce Mutex size and
> > complexity by using a similar method to what I did in r52332
> > with ccan/list
> > 
> > ("variable.c: additional locking around autoload")
> > 
> > It is compatible with current GVL 1:1 threading,
> > but I would like to support M:N threading, eventually.
> 
> Sorry I didn't check r52332. Could you explain more about your technique
> you want to introduce into sync.c and why native_sleep() is not enough
> now? Or please propose with your patch.

This is my work-in-progress patch:

	https://80x24.org/spew/20170427033423.19856-1-e / 80x24.org/raw

I am still working on fixing the failing test (but I am
distracted by another project).

> I'm afraid that the assumptions for native_sleep() (and other functions)
> will be break and can't control.

Right, I checked all callers of native_sleep and do not believe
they are affected by preserving unblock function.

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>