Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!betelgeuse!carlson
From: carlson@betelgeuse (Richard L. Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: OpenDevice from tasks
Message-ID: <13864@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 16 May 89 21:47:03 GMT
References: <15593@louie.udel.EDU>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: carlson@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Richard L. Carlson)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 23

In article <15593@louie.udel.EDU> thywiss@csvax.cs.ukans.edu (John A. Thywissen) writes:
>In article <0539,AA0539@chroma>, Bryan Ford writes
>that CloseDevice() should be called from processes only, 
>because a DELayed EXPunge may cause DOS's UnLoadSeg() to be
>called.
>
>This is not quite a valid conclusion because:
> ...
>  2.  Actually, UnLoadSeg() isn't called.  Exec (or actually ramlib)
>      frees the SegList itself. ...

Since I started this discussion, and since other people seem to be
interested in the results, I should probably jump back in here.

The consensus of Randell Jesup (who posted a followup) and Adam Levin
of CATS (who sent me email) [wow, what support from C-A!] is that there
should *not* be a problem with doing a CloseDevice() from a task (at
least with the current set of devices).  I would guess that John's
explanation above is the correct reason.

-- Richard
   ...!ucbvax!ernie!carlson
   carlson@ernie.berkeley.edu