From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <459A5E92.6030504@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:30:58 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <459A31E3.40807@domain.hid> <1167744149.30347.2.camel@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <1167744149.30347.2.camel@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010 List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: rpm@xenomai.org Cc: Jan Kiszka , xenomai-core Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 11:20 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>Hi all - and happy new year, >> >>I haven't looked at all the new code yet, only the commit messages. I >>found something similar to my fast-forward-on-timer-overrun patch in >>#2010 and wondered if Gilles' original concerns on side effects for the >>POSIX skin were addressed [1]. I recalled that my own final summary on >>this was "leave it as it is" [2]. >> > > > The best approach is to update the POSIX skin so that it does not rely > on the timer code to act in a sub-optimal way; that's why this patch > found its way in. Scheduling and processing timer shots uselessly is a > bug, not a feature in this case. There is some work to be done on the posix skin anyway, this will all be at once. By the way, I tested the trunk on ARM, and I still get a lockup when the latency period is too low. I wonder if we should not compare to "now + nkschedlat", or even use xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() instead of "now". -- Gilles Chanteperdrix