From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>
To: rpm@xenomai.org
Cc: xenomai-core <xenomai@xenomai.org>
Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC][PATCH] Factor out xnsynch_acquire/release
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:59:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48D9044A.6090901@domain.hid> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48D7551F.3070505@domain.hid>
Philippe Gerum 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.
>>
>
> I'm ok with the basic purpose of those changes, but if they are aimed at
> allowing direct lookups from the xnsynch code into the registry so that base
> object pointers can be safely assumed to be returned for threads, I would define
> specialized xnthread_register() and xnthread_lookup() calls to explicitly state
> that we do want to index struct xnthread pointers, and not any random type as
> the registry would otherwise permit.
>
> Also, for readability purpose, please factor the outer lookup code as much as
> possible.
>
> e.g.
> static inline RT_TASK *lookup_task(xnhandle_t handle)
> {
> return thread2rtask(xnthread_lookup(handle));
> }
Makes sense, will refactor the patch accordingly.
>
>> 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.
>>
>> remove-xnarch_atomic_intptr.patch:
>> Ok.
>>
>> spread-xeno_set_current.patch:
>> Ok. This is even a bug fix.
>>
>> xnsynch refactoring:
>> things have moved too much to see what has really changed in
>> xnsynch_wakeup_one_sleeper and xnsynch_sleep_on. But is not there a
>> common behaviour between the old and new services that could be factored
>> ? But otherwise I agree with the general idea of the patch, this is what
>> we had discussed with Philippe.
>>
The rest, specifically the approach of the last patch, is OK for you as
well?
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-23 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-15 15:14 [Xenomai-core] [RFC][PATCH] Factor out xnsynch_acquire/release Jan Kiszka
2008-09-15 17:10 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-09-16 17:15 ` Philippe Gerum
2008-09-21 10:24 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-09-21 17:48 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2008-09-21 18:07 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-09-21 19:03 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2008-09-22 8:09 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-09-22 8:18 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2008-09-22 8:57 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-09-22 18:41 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2008-09-23 8:44 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-09-23 8:45 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2008-09-23 9:01 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-09-22 8:19 ` Philippe Gerum
2008-09-23 14:59 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48D9044A.6090901@domain.hid \
--to=jan.kiszka@domain.hid \
--cc=rpm@xenomai.org \
--cc=xenomai@xenomai.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.