On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Alfille wrote:
This gets to a larger question: what should be internal to owlib, and what
should be in ow.h that is used by other programs. In the past, the only
direct clients of owlib were the included programs owfs., owhttpd,
owserver, ... They
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 10:28 -0400, Geo Carncross wrote:
All of which makes exposing the synchronization primitives used by OW
pretty much worthless.
I should clarify, that providing a common API to the language bindings
isn't bad, but requiring that they use them is- that is, having other
parts
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 10:37 am, Geo Carncross wrote:
I should clarify, that providing a common API to the language bindings
isn't bad, but requiring that they use them is- that is, having other
parts of OW use the same mutexes and locks and whathaveyou that the OW
language bindings do.
A mutual exclusion device is necessary.
OW_get, OW_put, and OW_finish all lock the common mutex.
If OW_get and OW_put /really can/ be used simultaneously, then a
condition is required:
in OW_get and OW_put:
LOCK(mutex);
level++;
UNLOCK(mutex);
{ real code }
LOCK(mutex);
level--;
SIGNAL(cond);
Ok, used your code, and created some paired functions in OWLIB:
// ow_api.c
int OWLIB_can_init_start( void ) ;
void OWLIB_can_init_end( void ) ;
int OWLIB_can_access_start( void ) ;
void OWLIB_can_access_end( void ) ;
int OWLIB_can_finish_start( void ) ;
void OWLIB_can_finish_end( void )
the physical devices, as well as important data structures.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Geo
Carncross
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:06 PM
To: owfs-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Owfs-developers] New owcapi interface
On Thursday 13 October 2005 03:39 pm, Geo Carncross wrote:
I did an update and cannot find the owcapi-in-progress. Is it on another
tag besides HEAD?
owfs/modules/owcapi
./configure --enable-owcapi (At least until development is done, then should
be default enabled since it will compile if
That subject almost sounded ironic to me... :) Are you tired of
new changes?
Anyway, nice that this capi finally is developed. I will be back
with some additions to this later. I have written some c-applications
using a mounted fuse filesystem, and I have always been missing lots of
functions
