http://www.olc.edu/~cdelong/jargon-4.4.7/jargon-4.4.7/html/D/deadly-embrace.html

In the case of 9P I believe the concern in context is waiting for
clunks when the server is dead means the waiter will never die.  Can
get particularly bad if its actually a communication failure with
bi-directional mounts where both sides can't exit because they can't
talk to each other.  Perhaps better explained here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/9f...@cse.psu.edu/msg03597.html

also discussed between brucee and russ here:

http://thedailyreviewer.com/compsys/view/9fans-clunk-clunk-10445370

The CSP/Hoare (University of Wollongong, really, is that a joke?)
reference that Brucee made is most likely here:
http://goo.gl/DphA

although it seems to point to:
Dijkstra, E.W. Cooperating sequential processes. in Programming
Languages       ed.     F.      Genuys. - -
Academic ~.r.ess, New York, 1968 pp 43-112.
as the first reference to "deadly embrace".

While I have a bit of insight into what brucee is talking about, all
of these came from google "deadly embrace" and google "deadly embrace
clunk" for the Plan 9 specific references.  Its a always a bit of a
pain when brucee is a bit subtle, but its more of a pain when people
are to lazy to even bother searching.

(reading ahead in the thread, which I was too lazy to do before
searching, I see that Gorka at least bothered to search - he gets the
golden google prize - which I think might be an pickled egg from the
University of Woolongong)

     -eric


On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:52 AM, roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if you hate misinformation, why not provide some correct information to
> counter it? i'd hazard a guess that nobody other than you in this thread
> knows what you mean by "deadly embrace".
>
> On 31 Oct 2010 05:47, "Bruce Ellis" <bruce.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> good call. i just hate misinformation. if there is any more misleading
> trash i will gladly give the offender Morgan's phone number.
>
> brucee
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Nemo <nemo.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> let's call it rumba and go on....

Reply via email to