From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4C124F5E.10104@bouyapop.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:59:42 +0200
From: Philippe Anel <xigh@bouyapop.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100318)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
References: <4C1242CD.5020202@bouyapop.org>	<AANLkTilQUS_JD8CWkcSJt_boJ1tBTG4i_xjZTfYfeyUl@mail.gmail.com>
	<f398e344c84e5946e0189ebb69638d57@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <f398e344c84e5946e0189ebb69638d57@kw.quanstro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9vx, kproc and *double sleep*
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 316d1888-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Ooops I forgot to answer this :
> - does changing spl* to manipulation of a per-cpu lock solve the problem?
> sometimes preventing anything else from running on your mach is
> exactly what you want.
>
No ... I don't think so. I think the problem comes from the fact the
process is no longer exclusively tied to the current Mach when going
(back) to schedinit() ... hence the change I did.

Phil;