From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinNEN2UiDzXu-SJ5JxHt3mFCB3ED1=1nEQmR10-@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=JChj6HGiPptpw9PdJ6PwpkMOMyLTXgsb4uQY7@mail.gmail.com>
	<62bde7ee0bc7ccdee84657319b0d5eb3@terzarima.net>
	<AANLkTin_N1Mwqnoi0uXdkppsrW35awa+k06Mfhwby6Fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinNEN2UiDzXu-SJ5JxHt3mFCB3ED1=1nEQmR10-@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:47:05 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinOB_NoZ05Oban2zr473vXwZwOc3BcGy82s49sO@mail.gmail.com>
From: roger peppe <rogpeppe@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [9fans] A little more ado about async Tclunk
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 722f3b9e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 29 October 2010 17:17, Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com> wrote:
> gee i thought i was the first to say deadly-embrace on this thread.
> it's not only problematic it's wrong. just reiterating what little
> shaun said circa 1999.

if deadlock is the issue, isn't it solved just as well
by asynchronously receiving the Rclunk as by processing
the whole clunk message asychronously?