From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 07:19:21 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4836971E-CA9D-4282-BC5E-4596E0A3EB2B@fb.com> References: <4836971E-CA9D-4282-BC5E-4596E0A3EB2B@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] minor kernel bug Topicbox-Message-UUID: f5798124-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > we do that in ilock() and canlock() so it's a bug I think to not do it also in lock(). > The field is only used in iprintcanlock which use canlock(), not lock(), so this > if fine, but for consistency it would be better to also do it in lock() no? ilock and unlock could assert(l->m->machno == m->machno). but currently you're right on both counts. - erik