From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <45C0615B.5060909@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:28:59 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: [Xenomai-core] Questions about pSOS task mode and task priority References: <1169832375.3346.67.camel@domain.hid> <45BDF5D8.4020607@domain.hid> <1170204016.21219.49.camel@domain.hid> <45C05975.3060900@domain.hid> <1170234649.25426.4.camel@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <1170234649.25426.4.camel@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Markus Osterried , xenomai@xenomai.org, Thomas Necker Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>In short, the following patch against 2.3.0 stock fixes the issue, >>>allowing threads to block while holding the scheduler lock. >> >>Ok, but this means that the skins which use XNLOCK with the previous >>meaning need fixing. >> > > > Only those which really wanted - i.e. by design - to return an error > flag (or the board to lockup or panic) in case of a thread going to > sleep while holding the schedlock. This change does not affect the > schedlock semantics otherwise. > I do not understand how it works, I mean, how do you know, in xnpod_schedule, if xnpod_schedule was voluntarily called by the current thread, or was called upon reception of an interruption ? -- Gilles Chanteperdrix