Er, if we're messing with this, and with rescheduling processes when  
you change priorities, do we want to consider how Processor>>yield  
behaves? Should it allow a lower
priority process to run if there are no processes runable at the same  
priority?

On 23-Jan-06, at 7:54 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Cees De Groot wrote:
>> Should this be adopted?
>
> The VW fix does seem overly complex for Squeak - the main issue is  
> that in Semaphore>>critical: we can be interrupted between the  
> following two lines:
>
>   self wait.
>   [blockValue := mutuallyExcludedBlock value] ensure:[self signal].
>
> Simply moving #wait inside the ensure'd block will cure the problem  
> (for very, very specific and nitpicky reasons that I'm not going to  
> explain in detail unless someone actually wants to know ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>

--
======================================================================== 
===
John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
======================================================================== 
===