From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:48:38 +0200
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-ID: <20101117064838.GB3597@fangle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <1e1e3d7c4781c86aa3a270cecdbaadbb@coraid.com>
	<875ae24babf9d402d55084c7dad708c0@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <875ae24babf9d402d55084c7dad708c0@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [9fans] That deadlock, again
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 83d11f66-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:33:13AM +0100, cinap_lenrek@gmx.de wrote:
> sorry for not being clear.  what i ment was that qpc is for the last
> qlock we succeeded to acquire.  its *not* the one we are spinning on.
> also, qpc is not set to nil on unlock.
>
Ok, so we set qpctry (qpcdbg?) to qpc before changing qpc?  Irrespective
of whether qpc is set or nil?  And should qunlock() clear qpc for safety,
or would this just make debugging more difficult?

++L