From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48D8AC60.3020908@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:44:16 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <48CE7BD7.6060504@domain.hid> <48D620DB.2070101@domain.hid> <48D688EE.7010404@domain.hid> <48D68D6D.9070909@domain.hid> <48D69A7A.7090302@domain.hid> <48D752BA.3000403@domain.hid> <48D754D8.30205@domain.hid> <48D75DE5.9020805@domain.hid> <48D7E6E7.9050302@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <48D7E6E7.9050302@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC][PATCH] Factor out xnsynch_acquire/release List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: xenomai-core Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/5412/focus=5405 >>>>>> >>>>> always-put-xnthread-base-into-registry.patch: >>>>> I understand the need, but I will cowardly let Philippe decide whether >>>>> he likes the implementation details. >>>>> >>>>> handle-base-xn_sys_current-1.patch: >>>>> In some places (pse51_mutex_timedlock_inner for instances) you use >>>>> XN_NO_HANDLE, in others (pse51_mutex_timedlock for instances) you use >>>>> NULL, are the two equivalents ? If yes, should not we always use the >>>>> same consistently ? Otherwise looks ok. >>>> I fail to find the NULL spots - which pse51_mutex_timedlock do you mean? >>> A few excerpts: >> Ah, you mean checking against non-zero - that can be changed of course. >> Updated patch below, hope I caught them all. > > Ok. Looks good to me. Minus the bug in mutex_save_count, but this can be > changed later. ??? Which bug? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux