From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu,  2 Jan 2014 18:28:37 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <83239c3d7e0996dd01d52735939ea1c8@mikro>
In-Reply-To: <d1c76daf9cd47b5a51d3320adefac3b2@felloff.net>
References: <d1c76daf9cd47b5a51d3320adefac3b2@felloff.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] devproc noteid changing for none
Topicbox-Message-UUID: abaa0fb4-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu Jan  2 18:18:54 EST 2014, cinap_lenrek@felloff.net wrote:
> that said, just holding alarms qlock while setting up->alarm = 0
> is not enougth when you want to guarantee that no alarms will be
> delivered when the alarm(0) syscall returns. you would also need to
> remove a potentially posted alarm note from your note array and
> reset up->notepending (all under debug qlock of course).

that's true.  up->nnote is not atomicly incremented.  alarm is an
insideous little monster.  it looks like a simple interface, but it is not.

- erik