|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
clipka wrote:
> Darren New schrieb:
>
>>>> I suppose that would work, at least assuming that a process never
>>>> releasing
>>>> a resource is not included in the definition of "deadlock".
>>>
>>> If you have a process that never releases a resource, then you're
>>> somewhat screwed anyway...
>>
>> Not really. It could be livelock, with all else outside of the
>> resource locking/reservation/management subsystem being correct.
>
> Yes. In this case it's the livelock that screws you. But screwed you are.
Sure. I was just pointing out that "livelock" (or any other indefinite
holding of a lock while not blocked) is not included in the definition of
"deadlock". :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |