Warp wrote:
>   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?

Right. I think probably the term "lock" there meant an individual mutex, or 
whatever structure you're using to keep track of who has which resource. 
I.e., "lock" meant a resource, not a reservation.

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

As long as the process holding the lock on the resource is not prevented 
from making progress, it's technically not a deadlock. That's why there are 
usually "fairness" criteria in such systems as well, where "fairness" means 
that no process that's ready to run gets delayed indefinitely.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message