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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 19691 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2022 05:38:47 -0000
Received: from 9front.inri.net (168.235.81.73)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 18 Aug 2022 05:38:47 -0000
Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by 9front; Thu Aug 18 01:36:40 -0400 2022
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sciops.net; s=20210706;
	t=1660800938;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:  in-reply-to:in-reply-to;
	bh=Wz06rdt9r31Bmbg0gYIJ0oP0xNj9VmDRcmcO0SfbR58=;
	b=tHYnnbeY3FXdxmk3SRyyZQ5k1Q+1ZQWzt/+uAU1lobKsIiOkiMNBlyCu2tW5CtgLFZYsDB
	jwD/ZDQ834t5dRlAvs0eMwP9J1HJDFv5bnFz3Low6YmgO4iUKNVkqmMYxnOhHKQlb53bMb
	d8oEWOKsjCqmhvs3nXt9IC3HuLuYkco=
Received: 
	by wopr.sciops.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id fdb671b3 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Wed, 17 Aug 2022 22:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <A155023DB7981C91B4DAD81A5913892B@wopr.sciops.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 07:36:33 +0200
From: qwx@sciops.net
To: 9front@9front.org
In-Reply-To: <614F45799921E978382B1562E32B1F75@eigenstate.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: extensible lossless element method 
Subject: Re: [9front] fix race condition on writes to #v/vgactl
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu Aug 18 04:22:59 +0200 2022, ori@eigenstate.org wrote:
> Quoth qwx@sciops.net:
> > 
> > You're absolutely right.  Here's another attempt; the code is a mess,
> > but I'm not up for refactoring it all right now.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> 
> looks ok to me.
> 
> Though, I wonder if we can just simplify by taking the lock on
> entry, and release it on return; I don't think that any of
> these operations happen often, so we don't need to be fine
> grained.

Alright, pushed.  I'll leave refactoring all of this for later.
Thanks!

Cheers,
qwx