Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >> Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> >>> let's look the the cangen source if there's propper error handling... >>> http://svn.berlios.de/viewvc/socketcan/trunk/can-utils/cangen.c?revision=787&view=markup >>> nope, there isn't >>> >>> There's the option "-i" to ignore ENOBUFS, which is....we don't want to >>> do that.... >>> >> I added a new "-p <timeout>" option to the cangen tool in the SocketCAN SVN. >> >> Thanks for the suggestion! >> >> Just fyi there's no significant difference in CPU usage or CAN bus load with > > Hm, that does surprise me. At what bitrate are you testing? >
I was testing @500kBit/s with an EMS PCMCIA Card connected directly to a PEAK USB Adapter (with termination). Using cangen can0 -g0 -i -x the generated busload was ca. 1-2% higher and the Gnome CPU systemmonitor indicated a slightly lower CPU usage than with cangen can0 -g0 -p 1 -x You may try this on our own. So even when the "ignore enobufs" approach looks a bit silly, it has a (positive) difference to the poll implementation. No idea why it is like this ... Regards, Oliver _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
