Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!not-for-mail
From: Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: system wide mutex
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:00:15 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <ldb0iv$a30$2@reader1.panix.com>
References: <cf62da1e-45f0-4ace-924a-b3035063c71e@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl.comtrol.com
X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1392051615 10336 64.122.56.22 (10 Feb 2014 17:00:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:00:15 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux)
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:65833

On 2014-02-09, Asaf Las <roegltd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi 
>
> Which one is most recommended to use for mutex alike locking to 
> achieve atomic access to single resource:
>
> - fcntl.lockf
> - os.open() with O_SHLOCK and O_EXLOCK 
> - https://pypi.python.org/pypi/lockfile/0.9.1
> - https://pypi.python.org/pypi/zc.lockfile/1.1.0
> - any other ?

Posix "pthread" mutexes shared memory.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Give them RADAR-GUIDED
                                  at               SKEE-BALL LANES and
                              gmail.com            VELVEETA BURRITOS!!