From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9fa82b8ef9f9a69d07b78316f6321052@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:33:06 +0200
In-Reply-To: <3b7a16b6d7ba18893953f5b1c9978f05@vitanuova.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] That deadlock, again
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 85361f00-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> after reset, it's illegal to call qlock without a process (notably
> in an interrupt function), as it previously was.

That suggests that the (hopefully) few instances of qlock()
invocations that may occur in this space should be burdened with the
need to check for the value of "up" and altogether skip the call if
it's nil.

Mind you, this is not the problem we set out to fix anymore, although
no doubt there is a relationship, however tenuous.

++L