Hi Miklos, >> Yes indeed it is very weird. There is a possible explanation: the code >> path got shorter with those two lines removed which makes the SPI data >> transfer faster which could cause some weird race condition somewhere. >> Would be very hard to debug that, but if that is the case then my >> comments in the file seem to be wrong. I would really appreciate if >> you could put together some stripped down test case which shows the >> problem (it is not too urgent, but I would like to get to the bottom >> of this). Nowadays, i don't have time to dig into this, but for sure I'll try as soon as i have some time.
>> > When I use rev.1.9, the problem occurs again. >> I am confused, the rev 1.9 is the original that is supposed to be >> working the same way as rev 1.11 Sorry for that mistake :) It should be rev1.10 not 1.9 as you noticed. Thanks for your help & quick reply Miklos, Regards, -- Akif On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Miklos Maroti <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Mehmet, > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Mehmet Akif Antepli > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Miklos, > > Sorry for my late reply. > > i had a chance to try your test code several times, but the leds never > > toggled, which means > > ArbiterInfo.inUse() == true, it never turns out to be false! > > Then the overall code is the same as in rev1.10. But my network works > quite > > well ! I did not come accross with any sudden disconnection problem that > i > > mentioned in my first e-mail. That's so weird, isn't it? > > Yes indeed it is very weird. There is a possible explanation: the code > path got shorter with those two lines removed which makes the SPI data > transfer faster which could cause some weird race condition somewhere. > Would be very hard to debug that, but if that is the case then my > comments in the file seem to be wrong. I would really appreciate if > you could put together some stripped down test case which shows the > problem (it is not too urgent, but I would like to get to the bottom > of this). > > > When I use rev.1.9, the problem occurs again. > > I am confused, the rev 1.9 is the original that is supposed to be > working the same way as rev 1.11 > > > Anyhow, i noticed that the new rev.1.11 on the CVS, it seems to work for > > now, > > Yes, it is reverted to the rev 1.9 behavior. > > Miklos >
_______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
