From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: quanstro@quanstro.net (erik quanstrom)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 09:38:23 -0500
Subject: [9fans] Forks of Plan 9 (Was: 9vx instability)
In-Reply-To: <bc05a200276effe42bd2937be2739cd0@gmx.de>
References: <bc05a200276effe42bd2937be2739cd0@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <89c32557337f83399a5dc818129636ad@chula.quanstro.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 476fb860-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri Nov 25 01:47:12 EST 2011, cinap_lenrek at gmx.de wrote:
> drivers should be pretty portable. 
> 
> there are more drastic changes like the eqlock function
> that touched many places. its basicly a normal qlock()
> that can error() out when the process gets a note or
> gets killed.

ha!  i've written this function independently a few times.
and applied it to a few well-chosen places.  i stopped short
because i wondered if postdawn (e.g. after schedinit() is
called), qlock() shouldn't always be an eqlock().

i see this problem most often with networking code.  the
the first reader is interruptable, but readers 2..n are not.

i'd love to hear other opinions on how to solve this problem.

- erik