Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com> wrote: > Ted Unangst wrote: > > > > Does 0xffff come from ACPI? Can we give that a name? > > > > I thought sleeping for one tick is kinda weird, but I see what it's doing > > with > > the acpi_dotask loop. This feels precarious, but whatever. > > So upon further thought, this is pretty bad. If the new task also calls sem > wait, we'll end up back here, recursing on the event loop. And of course, the > first sem can't wakeup until after the second one does. If you want to say it > was like this when you got here, ok, but pretending to pause like this is > troublesome. There was a bug in libc rpc code where it tried to do something > similar and blew up the stack.
Not sure I understand. There is only one acpi task.
