From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:11:30 +0200
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-ID: <20101118081130.GA3464@fangle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <215c4028dc0c6d0cdcda7fd23830bc70@proxima.alt.za>
	<0aabdaf4b9cdf3f0334b1e4fc018d676@plug.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0aabdaf4b9cdf3f0334b1e4fc018d676@plug.quanstro.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [9fans] That deadlock, again
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 84616bde-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:53:52AM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> you must be in process context to qlock, because only
> processes can sleep.
>
There's obviously at least one exception, because otherwise I would not
have got a panic at startup.  Or, for that matter there would not be
active code ahead of the

/sys/src/9/port/qlock.c:35,36
	if(up == 0)
		panic("qlock");

in qlock().  Or maybe that's where things are going wrong, but I doubt
that the code is mistaken, I know my understanding is inadequate :-)

++L