From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 21409 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2022 15:25:07 -0000
Received: from 9front.inri.net (168.235.81.73)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 22 Jun 2022 15:25:07 -0000
Received: from duke.felloff.net ([216.126.196.34]) by 9front; Wed Jun 22 11:22:57 -0400 2022
Message-ID: <388F566ADE20BEF9E93A334BCFEA644D@felloff.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:22:48 +0200
From: cinap_lenrek@felloff.net
To: 9front@9front.org
In-Reply-To: <27178dc6-eefd-7b5a-c243-467331d31e10@posixcafe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: base-based software 
Subject: Re: [9front] [PATCH] private /srv attach option
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

small bugs.

readstr() can error, so you need to put a waserror() to do
the runlock(b).

i'm a bit confused about the boardclunk().

as i see it, the original Board *b would never be unlocked
if the loop condition was true.

as the loop at the bottom changes b to the parent.

then the final wunlock() at the bottom would unlock the
wrong thing?

also, the lock order seems strange. we'r here locking from
the bottom up to the root.

as long as we always lock from the bottom to up, we'r
fine, but if we have any case where we acquired parent
lock, and then try to aquire a child lock we have
a lock order violation that can lead to deadlock.

sorry, didnt have time before to code review.

--
cinap