From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4E57E0C4.8070600@domain.hid> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:07:00 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4E5792CE.8080307@domain.hid> <4E579A32.8040208@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4E579A32.8040208@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Xenomai 2.6.0, or -rc1? List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: "xenomai@xenomai.org" On 08/26/2011 03:05 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-08-26 14:34, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I think it is about time we release Xenomai 2.6.0. Has anyone anything >> pending (maybe Alex)? Should we release an -rc first? > > No patches ATM, but [1] is still an open bug - a bug that affects the ABI. > > Jan > > [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/8343 > I had forgotten about this one. So, the only real problem is if a SCHED_NOTOTHER thread switches to SCHED_OTHER, this appears to be a corner case, so, I wonder if you should not simply add a special treatment, only for this corner case. What I have in mind is keeping a list of xnsynch in kernel-space (this basically means having an xnholder_t more in the xnsynch structure), and when we trip the corner case (thread with SCHED_FIFO switches to SCHED_OTHER), walk the list to find how many xnsynch the thread is the owner, we have that info in kernel-space, and set the refcnt accordingly. Or does it still sound overkill? -- Gilles.