From: cinap_lenrek@gmx.de
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Subject: Re: [9fans] That deadlock, again
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:20:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e5cc4388ae566a22a7dfcde72f7a78e8@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101118081130.GA3464@fangle.proxima.alt.za>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 207 bytes --]
hm... thinking about it... does the kernel assume (maybe in early
initialization) that calling qlock() without a proc is ok as long as
it can make sure it will not be held by another proc?
--
cinap
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3755 bytes --]
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] That deadlock, again
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:11:30 +0200
Message-ID: <20101118081130.GA3464@fangle.proxima.alt.za>
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:53:52AM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> you must be in process context to qlock, because only
> processes can sleep.
>
There's obviously at least one exception, because otherwise I would not
have got a panic at startup. Or, for that matter there would not be
active code ahead of the
/sys/src/9/port/qlock.c:35,36
if(up == 0)
panic("qlock");
in qlock(). Or maybe that's where things are going wrong, but I doubt
that the code is mistaken, I know my understanding is inadequate :-)
++L
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-18 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-18 5:50 Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 5:53 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-18 8:11 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 8:35 ` cinap_lenrek
2010-11-18 9:20 ` cinap_lenrek [this message]
2010-11-18 10:48 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 15:10 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-18 16:46 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-18 18:01 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 18:29 ` C H Forsyth
2010-11-18 18:23 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 18:33 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 18:43 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-18 18:54 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-18 19:01 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 19:27 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 18:03 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-18 5:57 ` Lucio De Re
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-11-16 4:21 lucio
2010-11-16 4:40 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-16 5:03 ` lucio
2010-11-16 5:11 ` cinap_lenrek
2010-11-16 5:18 ` lucio
2010-11-16 5:28 ` cinap_lenrek
2010-11-16 6:47 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-16 13:53 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-16 18:03 ` lucio
2010-11-17 4:08 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-17 4:18 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-17 4:37 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-17 4:43 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-17 5:22 ` cinap_lenrek
2010-11-17 6:45 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-17 7:03 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-17 7:09 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-17 5:33 ` cinap_lenrek
2010-11-17 6:48 ` Lucio De Re
2010-11-17 7:03 ` erik quanstrom
2010-11-17 14:40 ` Russ Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e5cc4388ae566a22a7dfcde72f7a78e8@gmx.de \
--to=cinap_lenrek@gmx.de \
--cc=9fans@9fans.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).