On 03/26/2014 04:11 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
Hi Sebastian, I think your solution here would be cleaner if you just store the 'previous_thread_life_protection' field in the API_Mutex_Control so the implementation detail about life state would not bleed into the code surrounding critical sections.
Ok, this is a good idea. I will update the patches accordingly.
More generally, if any smp lock will need to protect the thread life state of the acquiring thread, then the smp lock context would need to store the previous_thread_life_protection. Propagating this stored state across fine-grained critical sections will become quite a mess.
SMP locks should not touch this high level thread life states area. They can protect the thread life with disabled interrupts or thread dispatching disabled.
-- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de PGP : Public key available on request. Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
