Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
[1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/5412/focus=5405
always-put-xnthread-base-into-registry.patch:
I understand the need,
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
[1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/5412/focus=5405
always-put-xnthread-base-into-registry.patch:
I
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
[1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/5412/focus=5405
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
[1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/5412/focus=5405
always-put-xnthread-base-into-registry.patch:
I understand the need, but I will cowardly let Philippe decide whether
he likes the
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
[1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/5412/focus=5405
always-put-xnthread-base-into-registry.patch:
I understand the need, but I will cowardly let Philippe decide whether
he likes the
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
[1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/5412/focus=5405
always-put-xnthread-base-into-registry.patch:
I understand the need, but I will cowardly let Philippe decide whether
he likes the implementation details.
I'm
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
[1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/5412/focus=5405
always-put-xnthread-base-into-registry.patch:
I understand the need, but I will cowardly let
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Slowly moving on toward generic fast mutex support for Xenomai, this
patch is a proposal to address the increasing divergence of
owner-tracking vs. owner-less xnsynch objects.
The services dealing with the former will likely include a new, lockless
prologues for the mutex
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Slowly moving on toward generic fast mutex support for Xenomai, this
patch is a proposal to address the increasing divergence of
owner-tracking vs. owner-less xnsynch objects.
The services dealing with the former will likely include a new, lockless
Jan Kiszka wrote:
[1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/5412/focus=5405
always-put-xnthread-base-into-registry.patch:
I understand the need, but I will cowardly let Philippe decide whether
he likes the implementation details.
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Slowly moving on toward generic fast mutex support for Xenomai, this
patch is a proposal to address the increasing divergence of
owner-tracking vs. owner-less xnsynch objects.
The services dealing with the former will likely include a new, lockless
prologues for the mutex
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Slowly moving on toward generic fast mutex support for Xenomai, this
patch is a proposal to address the increasing divergence of
owner-tracking vs. owner-less xnsynch objects.
The services dealing with the former will likely include a new, lockless
12 matches
Mail list logo