From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7d9191a1033cef725ecab7ffc88d1d01@terzarima.net>
References: <e75ecaade32da4958c9e9795f314ddeb@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<7d9191a1033cef725ecab7ffc88d1d01@terzarima.net>
From: Venkatesh Srinivas <me@acm.jhu.edu>
Date: Sun,  7 Feb 2010 07:19:00 -0500
Message-ID: <f75780241002070419l2bc366c7mbc07b6d18a7bb46f@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: cf31625a-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> because such a lock is always taken with splhi, using ilock.
> you might find in older code the use of lock in interrupt handlers,
> protected by the implicit splhi of interrupt handling, and in
> a few cases explicit splhi calls before lock.

Ah, okay. I didn't realize that.

Perhaps it'd be clearer if ilock/iunlock took a different type than lock/unlock?

Thanks!
-- vs