From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Stein Subject: Re: exclusive access to can interface Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:41:03 +0100 Message-ID: <3261122.aWhS3clJQh@ws-stein> References: <2412937.XVpYjfC7zz@ws-stein> <50EB10F4.6070308@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from webbox1416.server-home.net ([77.236.96.61]:53685 "EHLO webbox1416.server-home.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752373Ab3AVJlG (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:41:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <50EB10F4.6070308@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Marc Kleine-Budde Cc: linux-can@vger.kernel.org Hello again, On Monday 07 January 2013 19:16:20, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 01/07/2013 05:52 PM, Alexander Stein wrote: > > is there a way to get exclusive (write) access to a CAN interface, so > > that only one bound socket can write CAN frames on the bus? > > No, what's the use case? I have now a more detailed view about the customers request and background: The problem runs some (time consuming) tests using CAN and they want to prohibit CAN write access meanwhile in order to prevent e.g. some (mis-)configuration of CAN devices or firmware updates. In such a case the test might shutdown and needs to be restarted. During the test nobody alse should be allowed to write to the CAN bus. I think this is justified. It seems this is unrelated to CANopen or user application started twice, like I've expected and written before. Best regards, Alexander