On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 09:22 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe,
>
> this bug was introduced with recent clock_event modifications:
>
> --- ksrc/nucleus/timer.c (Revision 2766)
> +++ ksrc/nucleus/timer.c (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ void xntimer_tick_aperiodic(void)
> translates into precious microsecs on low-end hw. */
> __setbits(sched->status, XNHTICK);
> if (!testbits(timer->status, XNTIMER_PERIODIC))
> - goto out;
> + continue;
> }
>
> do {
> @@ -254,7 +254,6 @@ void xntimer_tick_aperiodic(void)
> xntimer_enqueue_aperiodic(timer);
> }
>
> -out:
> __clrbits(sched->status, XNINTCK);
>
> xntimer_next_local_shot(sched);
>
>
> It doesn't look like typo, so what was your original intention?
The host timer is no more a purely periodic beast. Since it may be
aperiodic, we ought to get away from the interval update loop, otherwise
we'd remain stuck into it in the aperiodic case.
> The current code at least fails to handle outstanding timers that are
> enqueued right behind a one-shot host-tick timer.
>
True, I've been slightly, mmm, radical here. Will merge.
> Jan
>
--
Philippe.
___
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core