From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <46C1851B.8040800@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:34:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <46C0719B.1010102@domain.hid> <46C07AF2.60402@domain.hid> <46C07D73.7070302@domain.hid> <46C080C8.10906@domain.hid> <46C0835E.8010105@domain.hid> <46C0B036.3030306@domain.hid> <46C0B1DF.6090509@domain.hid> <46C0B9F7.9060103@domain.hid> <46C0D686.6000007@domain.hid> <46C14FE2.8000507@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <46C14FE2.8000507@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland Tollenaar Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] rtcan bufferoverflow but no evidence Reply-To: rolandtollenaar@domain.hid List-Id: Help regarding installation and common use of Xenomai List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wolfgang Grandegger Cc: xenomai-help , Jan Kiszka Hi, > Roland, could you please check the return code of [rt_dev_]close. > Nevertheless, I'm still puzzled why the socket shows up in > /proc/rtcan/sockets because rtcan_raw_close() is called before returning > -EAGAIN and the error mask shown there is weired as well. > Roland, do you perform the open and close in a serialized way (same > task) and in nrt context? I have now got the close loop with the printf in it. You are probably right that I was closing in the rt context because syslog shows an error from rtdm stating that one cannot close from rea time. I understand from a thread elsewhere that printf brings the program to secondary mode hence helps with the closing? Its working now infallibly, no more open sockets remain so I can work like this. Also applied the suggestion to turn off the loopback with setsockopt and that functions well too (no more buffer overflows) I only still have the problem with EML which does not seem happy in combination with rtcan. Even if I increase the rtskbf_cache_size value (now on 2048). It still occurs incidentally and even after the program has been running for a while. Anyhow that seems to have nothing to do with this topic....drifting a bit. Thanks. Roland > > Wolfgang. > > >