On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 06:35:55PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote: > this solution would break if people actually wrote code like > lock(a) > lock(b) > release(a) > release(b)
That sequence is important, lock 'a' might control the global table, and
lock 'b' a specific entry. Otherwise you have to exchange lock 'b' for
a reference count in order to release 'a'.
(this could apply to the pid lookup table)
David
--
David Laight: da...@l8s.co.uk
