From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18351.31369.697255.825404@domain.hid> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:28:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <47AF781E.4070102@domain.hid> References: <18350.7135.108901.491437@domain.hid> <18350.7315.555644.171720@domain.hid> <47AF057A.3070305@domain.hid> <18351.28960.164520.295075@domain.hid> <47AF781E.4070102@domain.hid> From: Gilles Chanteperdrix Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [patch 2/4] RTDM support for select-like service. 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@xenomai.org Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > > stats: > > > > include/rtdm/rtdm.h | 4 ++ > > > > include/rtdm/rtdm_driver.h | 30 +++++++++++++++- > > > > ksrc/skins/rtdm/core.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > > > > ksrc/skins/rtdm/device.c | 10 +++++ > > > > ksrc/skins/rtdm/drvlib.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > > 5 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > /me thinks that going for inline patches on this list is overdue... > > > > > > > @@ -1148,8 +1208,8 @@ int rtdm_sem_timeddown(rtdm_sem_t *sem, > > > > > > > > if (testbits(sem->synch_base.status, RTDM_SYNCH_DELETED)) > > > > err = -EIDRM; > > > > - else if (sem->value > 0) > > > > - sem->value--; > > > > + else if (sem->value > 0 && !--sem->value) > > > > + xnselect_signal(&sem->select_block, 0); > > > > else if (timeout < 0) /* non-blocking mode */ > > > > err = -EWOULDBLOCK; > > > > else { > > > > > > Uuuh, this doesn't look equivalent (for --sem->value < 0). > > > > > > Otherwise it's OK with me. > > > > After testing, it appears that the "owner" of a file descriptor changed from > > current->mm > > to > > container_of(xnshadow_ppd_get(__rtdm_muxid), struct rtdm_process, ppd) > > Yes, indeed, forgot about it. We have a full-blown owner structure now > to track comm and pid. > > > > > So, I now need a ppd hash lookup in __rtdm_context_get. > > > > You could add mm to rtdm_process. This means another indirection and > makes things worse (more cache misses in the worst case...). Would not it be simpler to put a pointer to the task_struct ? After all, it already has a pid, comm and mm, and a file descriptor will not survive a task_struct thanks to automatic closing of file descriptors. Could you > live without the check until we have per-process fd tabled, or was it > essential for the select thing? An application which I ported to Xenomai (and which uses the select call) closes all file descriptors in a for loop. The purpose of this loop is, I guess, to avoid leaving a file descriptor opened that was passed through exec. -- Gilles Chanteperdrix.