Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   You assume that the processes can reserve the resources in any order
> > they want. It may be so that process 1 *has to* reserve resource 1 before
> > it can reserve resource 2, and the other way around for process 2.

> Right. In which case, this mechanism doesn't work. :-) Otherwise, everyone 
> would always use this mechanism and not worry about deadlocks.

  So the original claim was not about numbering locks (whatever that might
mean), but numbering shared resources so that one process can only reserve
more than one resource at a time in the order dictated by those numbers?

  I suppose that would work, at least assuming that a process never releasing
a resource is not included in the definition of "deadlock".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message