From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dd6fe68a1002061612u754bf41ic04fbcfa2c2f2b4b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20100206161207.GA31545@centaur.acm.jhu.edu>
	<dd6fe68a1002061612u754bf41ic04fbcfa2c2f2b4b@mail.gmail.com>
From: Venkatesh Srinivas <me@acm.jhu.edu>
Date: Sat,  6 Feb 2010 22:02:27 -0500
Message-ID: <f75780241002061902n613c642ax882ecad9140117bd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [9fans] kenfs question?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cf0e9ffe-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Hi,

I guess I wasn't clear; what I was asking was why it was safe to
attempt to take a lock when splhi() at all.

On a UP, if that lock is contended and interrupts are off, you'll
lockup, no? (The timer interrupt handler will never run, reschedule
will never happen, the lock holder will never run).

-- vs