xiaoxiang781216 commented on PR #17352: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17352#issuecomment-3573526446
> > > > [Apache NuttX RTOS: Xiaomi Contributions.](https://github.com/orgs/apache/projects/551) > > As @anchao mentioned, which I agree a lot: sigals are disabled not only for footprint but also for improving safety: > Again I don't against the full disable signal, but the full disable can't be enabled in many cases. The disable signal by level is more flexiable and useful, and let the end user could enable full or partial signal disable case by case. > To reiterate, the current implementation of signals is highly unsafe because it borrows the context of the interrupted thread in its delivery logic. If a lock is held in the signal context, a serious bug will occur, which is why we prohibit the use of signals. Do you review @extinguish's patch? the partial signal disable remove all these unsafe part you mention, but keep the useful and safe to improve the POSIX compliant. > > By the way, I work for Li Auto, a well-known Chinese new energy vehicle manufacturer that has sold more than 1.4 million cars. I am responsible for using NuttX to develop platform software for our vehicle control systems. It's great that more and more company develop the different solution on top of NuttX. > We place great emphasis on both footprint and safety, and of course, safety is always our top priority. > But, we need consider other application(e.g. IoT and embeded) too since many people use NuttX on them. Actually, we also use NuttX on many products including Car, that's why I suggest to accept both approach. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
