From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Philippe Gerum In-Reply-To: <467F5CBF.9040108@domain.hid> References: <467CD519.1060802@domain.hid> <1182594345.6000.9.camel@domain.hid> <467D0684.7030604@domain.hid> <1182623858.6000.139.camel@domain.hid> <467E2E9C.90905@domain.hid> <1182708919.7044.201.camel@domain.hid> <467F5CBF.9040108@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:15:50 +0200 Message-Id: <1182809750.1563.77.camel@domain.hid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: Philippe Gerum Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Monotonic, realtime, and other timers Reply-To: rpm@xenomai.org List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai-core On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 08:12 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Ok, I think it's time to summarise some results of this thread: > > - xntimers will be of three kinds: real-time absolute, monotonic > absolute, and monotonic relative ones (ie. all POSIX). I'm currently > in favour of passing this property on timer start and not pushing > parts or more of it into timer init. I will probably experiment this change in the course of x3-devel anyway, we'll see what we get from it then. > > - XNTBISOL will be introduced, a flag that, if set, declares a time > base being isolated from the master base (and associates). In my > understanding, this flag should be passed to xntbase_alloc and should > also leave the wallclock offset initially untouched again. > > - On xntbase_adjust_time, first define the set of affected time bases: > if XNTBISOL is set, only touch the passed base, if it is not set, > change all bases in the system that have it cleared as well. For this > set of time bases, modify the offset and adjust all running real-time > timers. > > - Make all legacy RTOS skins isolated by default again, but offer a > runtime or compile-time switch to add them individually to the gang > of synchronised time bases (i.e. POSIX, native, RTDM). > > Did I get it correctly? > Looks good. Regarding the monotonic support, I tend to agree with you: let's avoid conversions especially if doing so is cheap implementation-wise. > Jan > -- Philippe.