> On 08.06.22 09:54, gabriel.moy...@dlr.de wrote: > >>>>>> I don't know why there is this "if" in the code. I will ask on a > >>>>>> FreeBSD mailing list. > >>>>>> > >>>>> I think it is for the case that th_generation has changed in > >>>>> between saving the th and th_counter. If this happens pps->capgen > >>>>> is set to > >>>>> 0 and later pps_event() returns earlier. Since for uniprocessor > >>>>> th_generation equal to 0 is not used, I guess we can removed this > >>>>> if for those configurations > >>>> I asked on a FreeBSD mailing list: > >>>> > >>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-hackers/2022-June/001165 > >>>> .h > >>>> tml > >>>> > >>> Thanks for asking. > >>> I'll prepare and send a new patch removing the "if" for uniprocessor > >>> configurations just in case. > >> Please wait with a new patch for a response from FreeBSD. > >> > > What is your suggestion here? Should we check the generation only once? Or > > should we leave the code as is and just remove the > "if" in pps_capture() for uniprocessor configurations since th_generation > equal to zero is not used? > > We should first leave the code as is. I don't know when I have time to send > patches to FreeBSD. >
I would like it to be considered to remove the parts where th_generation is checked to be equal to zero just for uniprocessor configurations. The reason is that porting back these changes to RTEMS 5, the test sppps01 fails because th_generation starts with value zero. Not sure why in RTEMS 6 th_generation starts with one but since in uniprocessor configuration th_generation equal zero is not used, I think it makes sense to not consider that case. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
