From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <f16734ab70dbd655f476d4f775c6064e@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 06:37:57 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1e1e3d7c4781c86aa3a270cecdbaadbb@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: 838e9c5e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> Now, the qunlock(s) should not precede the qlock(s), this is the first
>> case in this procedure:
>
> it doesn't.  waserror() can't be executed before the code
> following it.  perhpas it could be more carefully written
> as
>
>> >  2095		qlock(s);
>> >  2091		if(waserror()){
>> >  2092			qunlock(s);
>> >  2093			nexterror();
>> >  2094		}
>> >>2096		qunlock(tcp);

Hm, I thought I understood waserror(), but now I'm sure I don't.  What
condition is waserror() attempting to handle here?

++L