--IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 06:27:14PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> >> I'm not sure I completely understand the logic, but I cannot see why
> >> it would be necessary to run the final child cleanup (work done by
> >> reaper) from process context.
> > The reaper was specifically added (by me) because these code paths
> > CAN block.  Any time you make a call into UVM, you are likely to take
> > a lock, which could block.
>=20
> I _must_ be missing something.  What's wrong with their blocking?  I
> see nothing wrong with blocking during process exit.

If you have a process context, nothing's wrong. If however you don't have=
=20
a process context, well, blocking is an issue. ;-) I think the problem is=
=20
that we used to try to block in the being-torn-down process context, which=
=20
didn't do so well.

Take care,

Bill

--IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE/nDrJWz+3JHUci9cRAlcnAJ4uTBbVs1mSzhPSLtsb917U3j/zGgCePbph
MJD0LGopiUpmbuQLRABapu0=
=DIq/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX--