Hi Kaspar!
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:59:14AM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 11:14 AM, Oleg Hahm wrote:
> > Okay, re-reading the documentation again, I agree that the behavior deviates
> > from what is written. I also see, that the behavior is indeed different on
> > different arch
Hi,
On 11/29/2016 11:14 AM, Oleg Hahm wrote:
Okay, re-reading the documentation again, I agree that the behavior deviates
from what is written. I also see, that the behavior is indeed different on
different architectures which is clearly a bug.
Turns out this is done similarily on all platform
Hi Kaspar!
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 10:27 AM, Oleg Hahm wrote:
> > I would call it rather a bug in the documentation. The behavior of the
> > scheduler for threads of the same priority is simply underspecified.
>
> We had that discussion of
Hi,
On 11/29/2016 10:27 AM, Oleg Hahm wrote:
> I would call it rather a bug in the documentation. The behavior of the
> scheduler for threads of the same priority is simply underspecified.
We had that discussion offline. The "bug" is both in Cortex-M's ISR
handling and in the docs.
> "Assigning
Hi Kaspar!
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:46:58AM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
> On 11/26/2016 12:55 AM, Charles Cross wrote:
> > Perhaps this is designed for the case where actions are taken inside the
> > ISR which signal other threads (like sending IPC messages), but I'm
> > still not clear on wh
Hi Charles,
On 11/26/2016 12:55 AM, Charles Cross wrote:
> Perhaps this is designed for the case where actions are taken inside the
> ISR which signal other threads (like sending IPC messages), but I'm
> still not clear on why it would need to reschedule the previously
> executing thread relative
Hi all,
I'm rather new to using RIOT and have been hunting around for some thorough
documentation on how the scheduler works, but haven't really been able to
find anything that helps to explain what I am generally seeing in most ISR
definitions, which tend to end with the following bit of code:
i
