From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4CDED97B.7050700@domain.hid> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:31:23 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4CC82C8D.3080808@domain.hid> <4CD1DE12.5010309@domain.hid> <4CD1E890.5010702@domain.hid> <4CD1EC2F.4040603@domain.hid> <4CD1ED16.8030103@domain.hid> <4CD1EDA8.10007@domain.hid> <4CD1F33C.5070208@domain.hid> <4CD1F3F5.5080505@domain.hid> <4CD1F4FE.9020908@domain.hid> <4CD1F69B.9070100@domain.hid> <4CD1F906.1070703@domain.hid> <4CD1FABD.1080301@domain.hid> <4CD2612C.2070507@domain.hid> <4CD279F7.7070502@domain.hid> <4CD27C46.8010302@domain.hid> <4CD27DC2.7060607@domain.hid> <4CD2A96B.3080001@domain.hid> <4CD2B2A7.9010900@domain.hid> <4CD2C50F.1090604@domain.hid> <4CD32E76.3080004@domain.hid> <4CD33F0C.1050403@domain.hid> <4CD340AA.60002@domain.hid> <4CD34355.5020304@domain.hid> <4CD35DC7.1000507@domain.hid> <4CD3DAC5.6000400@domain.hid> <4CD4A0EF.1@domain.hid> <4CD5B9FC.6050602@domain.hid> <4CD5BC82.6060106@domain.hid> <1289083796.1842.239.camel@domain.hid> <4CD5FA26.4090504@domain.hid> <4CDC0FBD.9050402@domain.hid> <4CDD5EEE.9080303@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4CDD5EEE.9080303@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100 List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: "xenomai@xenomai.org" Jan Kiszka wrote: > Am 11.11.2010 16:46, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> I just hope we finally converge over a solution. Looks like all >>> possibilities have been explored now. A few more comments on this one: >>> >>> It probably makes sense to group the status bits accordingly (both their >>> values and definitions) and briefly document on which status field they >>> are supposed to be applied. >>> >>> I do not understand the split logic - or some bits are simply not yet >>> migrated. XNHDEFER, XNSWLOCK, XNKCOUT are all local-only as well, no? >>> Then better put them in the _local_ status field, that's more consistent >>> (and would help if we once wanted to optimize their cache line usage). >>> >>> The naming is unfortunate: status vs. lstatus. This is asking for >>> confusion and typos. They must be better distinguishable, e.g. >>> local_status. Or we need accessors that have debug checks built in, >>> catching wrong bits for their target fields. >>> >>> Good catch of the RPI breakage, Gilles! >> Hi Jan, >> >> I just pushed a modified version of this patch, including your remarks >> as well as the ones of Philippe. I suspect some of the cleanup patches >> you sent still make sense over this patch, would it be possible to >> rebase them over this pushed version? > > Just rebased and pushed my queue. One additional optimization was added > ("Optimize setting of XNRESCHED"), basic tests passed. Ah, I thought about this one, I wonder why I forgot it. Merged, thanks. -- Gilles.