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