From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <7d9191a1033cef725ecab7ffc88d1d01@terzarima.net>
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Sun,  7 Feb 2010 10:42:10 +0000
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <e75ecaade32da4958c9e9795f314ddeb@brasstown.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] kenfs question?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cf2483a0-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I guess I wasn't clear; what I was asking was why it was safe to
> attempt to take a lock when splhi() at all.

because such a lock is always taken with splhi, using ilock.
you might find in older code the use of lock in interrupt handlers,
protected by the implicit splhi of interrupt handling, and in
a few cases explicit splhi calls before lock.