On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Charles Forsyth <fors...@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
