hm... thinking about it... does the kernel assume (maybe in early initialization) that calling qlock() without a proc is ok as long as it can make sure it will not be held by another proc?
-- cinap
--- Begin Message ---On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:53:52AM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > > you must be in process context to qlock, because only > processes can sleep. > There's obviously at least one exception, because otherwise I would not have got a panic at startup. Or, for that matter there would not be active code ahead of the /sys/src/9/port/qlock.c:35,36 if(up == 0) panic("qlock"); in qlock(). Or maybe that's where things are going wrong, but I doubt that the code is mistaken, I know my understanding is inadequate :-) ++L
--- End Message ---
