-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.2k
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
GH-96071: fix deadlock in PyGILState_Ensure #96124
Conversation
ca92ae3
to
3d9dc83
Compare
Nice, now that we have both, which one do you prefer in terms of maintainability? (Is ok if you like the other one more) I personally like this one a bit more because I can reason easier about re-entrancy and concurrency |
@pablogsal Let's go with this one. I agree this is easier to understand than the other one. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM (with one minor adjustment to a comment)
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase |
Co-authored-by: Eric Snow <[email protected]>
Thanks @kumaraditya303 for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.11. |
Alternative of pythonGH-96107 (cherry picked from commit e0d54a4) Co-authored-by: Kumar Aditya <[email protected]>
GH-96129 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch. |
Alternative of GH-96107 (cherry picked from commit e0d54a4) Co-authored-by: Kumar Aditya <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Kumar Aditya <[email protected]>
Alternative of #96107
Automerge-Triggered-By: GH:ericsnowcurrently