From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfgang Grandegger Subject: Re: exclusive access to can interface Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:08:36 +0100 Message-ID: <50EBF024.1030507@grandegger.com> References: <2412937.XVpYjfC7zz@ws-stein> <50EB10F4.6070308@pengutronix.de> <2293513.Wi876mfY7y@ws-stein> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ngcobalt02.manitu.net ([217.11.48.102]:33668 "EHLO ngcobalt02.manitu.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755138Ab3AHKIq (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2013 05:08:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: <2293513.Wi876mfY7y@ws-stein> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alexander Stein Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde , linux-can@vger.kernel.org On 01/08/2013 10:23 AM, Alexander Stein wrote: > Hello Marc, > > 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? > > This was a customers request in order to prevent multiple applications (or > instances) to send CAN frames on a specific CAN interface at the same time > with the very same CAN-IDs. Concurrent reads shall still be allowed! Application == CANopen?! It's like giving exclusive access to a network device. Isn't that possible? Well, at a first glance I have not found anything like that. Wolfgang.