> > The spec and SYSV certainly ignore threading in this situation and you > > know that perfectly well (or did in 2004) > > The discussion petered out (or that mailing list archive lost articles > from the thread) without any kind of resolution, or indeed interest. I think the resolution was that the EDEADLK stayed. > What is your suggestion for handling this problem? As it is now, the > kernel 'detects' deadlock where there is none, which doesn't seem > allowed by SuSv3 either Re-read the spec. The EDEADLK doesn't account for threads, only processes. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
