From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <d4994b84508f6970c63ab163158e5ac1@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:01:12 +0200
In-Reply-To: <51b322d6b85b82a50bdc787a90067330@coraid.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: 8548fb84-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> /n/dump/2010/1118/sys/src/9/port/qlock.c:18,23 - port/qlock.c:18,25
>   {
>   	Proc *p;
>
> + 	if(up == nil && conf.postdawn)
> + 		panic("qlock: %#p: postdawn up nil\n", getcallerpc(&q));
>   	if(m->ilockdepth != 0)
>   		print("qlock: %#p: ilockdepth %d\n", getcallerpc(&q), m->ilockdepth);
>   	if(up != nil && up->nlocks.ref)

Yes, this is the type of explicit-ness I was thinking of.  Note that
you can now drop further tests for up == 0 later in the qlock() text.

++L