* [Xenomai] rtdm_lock_get
@ 2015-09-19 11:26 Gilles Chanteperdrix
2015-09-22 18:53 ` Jan Kiszka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Gilles Chanteperdrix @ 2015-09-19 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xenomai
Hi,
now that rtdm_lock_get() locks the scheduler, and if moved the
scheduler lock before the spin_lock, would not it be possible to use
rtdm_lock_get() with irqs on ?
Regard.
--
Gilles.
https://click-hack.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xenomai] rtdm_lock_get
2015-09-19 11:26 [Xenomai] rtdm_lock_get Gilles Chanteperdrix
@ 2015-09-22 18:53 ` Jan Kiszka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2015-09-22 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gilles Chanteperdrix, Xenomai
On 2015-09-19 13:26, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Hi,
>
> now that rtdm_lock_get() locks the scheduler, and if moved the
> scheduler lock before the spin_lock, would not it be possible to use
> rtdm_lock_get() with irqs on ?
Conceptually, yes. People will only have to be more carefully to use the
right mechanism depending on if there are IRQ-based users or not - just
like under Linux. We avoided this trap so far.
Maybe we should ask the user to mark IRQ-free spinlocks via a special
rtdm_lock_init_noirq. Then we could validate the caller's context in a
debug version.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-09-22 18:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-09-19 11:26 [Xenomai] rtdm_lock_get Gilles Chanteperdrix
2015-09-22 18:53 ` Jan Kiszka
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.