From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: <55B0B2EA.8000602@xenomai.org> <55B0B5CA.9080608@siemens.com> <55B0B7B6.2080709@xenomai.org> <55B0EBBD.1020509@siemens.com> <55B24BD7.9060502@xenomai.org> <55B25204.1010808@siemens.com> <55B25505.1090602@xenomai.org> From: Jan Kiszka Message-ID: <55B25869.3000505@siemens.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:23:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55B25505.1090602@xenomai.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] rt_print_auto_init() List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Philippe Gerum Cc: "Xenomai@xenomai.org" On 2015-07-24 17:08, Philippe Gerum wrote: > On 07/24/2015 04:56 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2015-07-24 16:29, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>> On 07/23/2015 03:27 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 2015-07-23 11:45, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>> On 07/23/2015 11:37 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-07-23 11:24, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you still have a use case for calling rt_print_auto_init(false) or >>>>>>> not calling rt_print_auto_init(true) from libcobalt's bootstrap code? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Huh, that was a day-one feature, now 8 years old, barely remember the >>>>>> details. I'm currently not aware of a concrete scenario. It definitely >>>>>> makes sense to revisit this think. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess one, if not the major problem back then was that the implicit >>>>>> malloc of the initialization step was not consistently causing a >>>>>> SIGDEBUG warning. That is now different. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since the current thread won't be notified until XNWARN is armed in its >>>>> TCB, any objection to move that call as a nop placeholder to the compat >>>>> section in libtrank, leaving the implicit init to libcobalt as currently? >>>> >>>> Ack. >>>> >>> >>> Ok, let's see how deep you can dive into your context stack these days: >>> what about rt_print_cleanup() now? I see no in-tree callers, and I >>> wonder whether there is any use case for an application to stop the >>> stdio support during runtime. >> >> I used to have one recently that was specifically interested in >> terminating the associated thread. But that case was modified later on >> due to other reasons. In principle, the value of this cleanup function >> is in the printer thread control, even if that means cutting of wrapped >> I/O (you could still print via unwrapped services then). >> > > Ok. Was it part of a broader feature aimed at moving the per-process rt > support to a quiescent state? No, rather about ensuring that if you terminate only the main thread in an application that believes this thread was the last one, the application as a whole terminates. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux