From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ef7109a0d4fd16f5bc57821cfa3ec91e@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:03:51 +0200
In-Reply-To: <8d7d663d856af3e813f65f690ff37904@plug.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] That deadlock, again
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 85250eae-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> but i have a feeling that there is a mistake in your
> modification to qlock.  you didn't have this panic
> before you modified qlock.

qlock() is broken, or at the very least ambivalent.  Someone ought to
put it out of its misery: is it legal or is it not to call qlock() in
a up == 0 context?

++L