On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:34:23PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > There are use cases where we want to allow 2-level nesting of one > terminal lock underneath another one. So the terminal lock type is now > extended to support a new nested terminal lock where it can allow the > acquisition of another regular terminal lock underneath it. You're stretching things here... If you're allowing things under it, it is no longer a terminal lock. Why would you want to do such a thing?
