Hi Norm, Yes, I am actually proposing a pre-allocated memory routine. I am not interested in accessing memory through the linux kernel per se (although if such a mechanism existed I would use it). What I do want to do is to have a memory pool available that gets allocated at load time and dispatched to threads upon need. I started to write a memory pool interface for the specific need that I had but I was thinking, why not make it generic??
I was going to call the routines rt_malloc() and rt_free() unless this would not be compatable in the mindset of what malloc does. I guess by calling it rt_malloc() you are assuming that it does not block (which it doesnt), it is relatively quick (it is), and that there will be tradeoffs (there are). The main tradeoffs are its fixed size, which I feel can be handled by proper use of the functions and proper care (we are RT programmers and always need to be careful after all). I am almost done with a simple implementation and it looks like it will work (famous last words, considering I haven't event tried to compile it yet! hehe :o) I will try it out. Hmmm... Someone has just pointed out to me that RTAI has a dynamic memory manager available already. It looks like my code may not be of much value if I end up switching to RTAI. I'll finish it on general principle and so I can finish my code that prompted this whole thing using RTLinux. Hmm.. another reason to port my stuff to RTAI. Are there any real technical disadvantages to RTAI (coming form people who actually use both RTOS's ).. everything I have seen has looked like speculation or a Holy/Philosophical decision. Please, no flames .. I am new to this list, I dont mean to cause problems!! :o) thanks. ~Ken -- [rtl] --- To unsubscribe: echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For more information on Real-Time Linux see: http://www.rtlinux.org/
