Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: Fixed two timer base regressions

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 964 bytes --]

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 09:38 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Hi Philippe,
>>>
>>> the "trivial" bugs are fixed already: see #2152 for the reason why
>>> rt_dev_read timeouts took too long (the timer mode was ignored by
>>> xnsynch_sleep_on),
>> Ok.
>>
>>>  and I also found a yet invisible bug in
>>> rtdm_toseq_init that would have picked the wrong time base (#2153).
>>>
>> Using xnpod_current_thread()'s time base in rtdm_toseq_init() will
>> always pick the master one when called over a secondary mode context,
>> which according to the doc, is allowed. Is this intended?
> 
> rtdm_toseq_init will only be called over primary context, it belongs
> into the same context as rtdm_mutex_timedlock, rtdm_sem_timeddown, etc.
> 

OK, got your point: you were referring to the rtdm_toseq_init doc which
talks about secondary mode usage - this needs fixing now (and never made
any sense :( ).

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]