Jürgen, > After digging deep, I found that our problem was caused by something > else, so this fix is not needed, but we kept it because we did not like > that construct as you also point out. >> >> If you really expect cyg_mutex_lock to ever return false, >> then the right thing to do would be to assert(false) >> and print a callstack or directly enter the debugger. > No problem anymore.. > But is there a better way to loop over the mutex lock?
no, IMHO a simple "cyg_mutex_lock(&spl_mutex);" would have been enough. But these patches are not about style at all. But by the way there is another patch in that vicinitry: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001629 That may apply to everyone who uses a tick count other than the default. Regards Bernd.
