On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Dylan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 09:21:54 PM Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> No, not quite. But this works (at least in principle, will have to >> have another look though). >> >> What I was suggesting was simply removing all locking from the _print >> function and asserting that the lock was held instead (since all >> callers to it acquired the lock) > > I guess I should have been more clear, RLock does not have a property or > method that can be called to assert that the lock is held, only Lock > does. So if we want to remove locking from the protected/private methods > and only assert that the lock is taken we must use a regular Lock.
Oh, well *that* stinks. Sorry this ended up being a lot of work -- I had intended for it to be about 15s of your time to apply it :( I'll take a look at the non-recursive one shortly. -ilia _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
