Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bbn!rochester!udel!new
From: new@udel.EDU (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Forbid() is not nice
Message-ID: <15705@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 18 May 89 02:31:02 GMT
References: <17148@usc.edu> <24279@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <18268@cup.portal.com> <17183@usc.edu> <21814@srcsip.UUCP> <5847@cs.Buffalo.EDU> <9160@polya.Stanford.EDU> <207@doctor.Tymnet.COM> <15582@louie.udel.EDU> <May.16.15.38.59.1989.9730@pilot.njin.net>
Sender: usenet@udel.EDU
Reply-To: new@udel.EDU (Darren New)
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 22

In article <May.16.15.38.59.1989.9730@pilot.njin.net> limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>In article <15582@louie.udel.EDU> new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes:
>> If you only wish to
>> keep a particular task from running while you are, push your
>> pripority up or even better push the priority of the other task
>> down.   -- Darren
>
>Let me guess, you haven't taken any courses in operating systems yet;
>have you?  Can you say "unreliable methods of insuring serialization?"
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 

Actually, I know quite alot about OS's. My statement does stand;
if you want to keep another task from running WHILE YOU ARE RUNNING,
priorities will work. Note that Forbid() does not disable other 
tasks from running while you are blocked any more that priorities
do. The original statement was along the lines of
"I have exactly two tasks accessing common memory and Forbid()
works for me" followed by "Avoid Forbid(), use semaphores".
I was simply presenting another method. Notice that I have
preserved your smiley's, indicating that I recognise your intent
and just want to clarify the situations in which prio's are
workable. -- Darren