From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 30 9:58:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-30-103.research.att.com [135.207.30.103]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4E237B406; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fenner@research.att.com) Received: from alliance.research.att.com (alliance.research.att.com [135.207.26.26]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193961E00E; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from windsor.research.att.com (windsor.research.att.com [135.207.26.46]) by alliance.research.att.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA25018; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:58:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Fenner Received: (from fenner@localhost) by windsor.research.att.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.5) id JAA17661; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200107301658.JAA17661@windsor.research.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII To: jhb@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Lock order reversals that aren't problematic Cc: current@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:58:05 -0700 Versions: dmail (solaris) 2.2j/makemail 2.9b Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >...since a lock order reversal means that you can get in a deadlock... Argh, of course. It's only not problematic if it's a uniprocessor and it doesn't take an interrupt at the wrong time. Sorry for being dense, I'm still used to spl() =) Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message