Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in IRQ-off
context, thus it *is* timecritical).
While thinking about the possibility to convert the hard IRQ lock
protection of kheapq into some Linux mutex or whateve
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in IRQ-off
context, thus it *is* timecritical).
Critical should be understood here in the sense that IRQs are off while
the loop workload is hig
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
>> especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in IRQ-off
>> context, thus it *is* timecritical).
>>
>
> Critical should be understood here in the sense that
Hi,
I noticed that xnhead_extend() is not used at the moment [1], thus the
whole extent management is redundent for now. Are there plans to use it
in the future? Should we keep this feature?
I'm asking as I still have the idea in my head of breaking up the heap
service and introducing a generic a
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in IRQ-off
context, thus it *is* timecritical).
Critical should be understood here in the sense that
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that xnhead_extend() is not used at the moment [1], thus the
whole extent management is redundent for now. Are there plans to use it
in the future? Should we keep this feature?
I'm asking as I still have the idea in my head of breaking up the heap
service and int
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>>
Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in
IRQ-off
context, thus it *is* tim
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in
IRQ-off
context, thus it *is* timecritical).
Criti
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>>
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
>> especially as it is n
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed that xnhead_extend() is not used at the moment [1], thus the
>> whole extent management is redundent for now. Are there plans to use it
>> in the future? Should we keep this feature?
>>
>> I'm asking as I still have the idea in my
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in
IRQ-
Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in IRQ-off
context, thus it *is* timecritical).
While thinking about the possibility to convert the hard IRQ lock
protection of kheapq into some Linux mutex or whateve
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in IRQ-off
context, thus it *is* timecritical).
Critical should be understood here in the sense that IRQs are off while
the loop workload is hig
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
>> especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in IRQ-off
>> context, thus it *is* timecritical).
>>
>
> Critical should be understood here in the sense that
Hi,
I noticed that xnhead_extend() is not used at the moment [1], thus the
whole extent management is redundent for now. Are there plans to use it
in the future? Should we keep this feature?
I'm asking as I still have the idea in my head of breaking up the heap
service and introducing a generic a
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in IRQ-off
context, thus it *is* timecritical).
Critical should be understood here in the sense that
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that xnhead_extend() is not used at the moment [1], thus the
whole extent management is redundent for now. Are there plans to use it
in the future? Should we keep this feature?
I'm asking as I still have the idea in my head of breaking up the heap
service and int
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>>
Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in
IRQ-off
context, thus it *is* tim
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in
IRQ-off
context, thus it *is* timecritical).
Criti
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>>
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
>> especially as it is n
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed that xnhead_extend() is not used at the moment [1], thus the
>> whole extent management is redundent for now. Are there plans to use it
>> in the future? Should we keep this feature?
>>
>> I'm asking as I still have the idea in my
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in
IRQ-
22 matches
Mail list logo
