Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
 > prio(task1) > prio(task2)
> > 1. task1 grabs a resource
 > 2. task1 sleeps for some time
 > 3. task2 blocks requesting the resource
 > 4. task1 wakes up from the sleep and releases the resource to task2
> 5. task1 wants the resource back immediately and calls > xnsynch_sleep_on() since the ownership has been transferred to task2 > since step 4. > 6a. old way: task1 would block and task2 would run anyway, with a PIP > boost, blocking task1 until the resource is released > 6b. new way: task1 steals the resource previously granted to task2 > directly from xnsynch_sleep_on(), but doing so, nobody downstream has > had a chance to update any skin-specific data, such as an additional > "owner" field.


Posix skin mutexes work the new way without calling xnsynch_sleep_on, so
probably need fixing.


I don't see any additional information maintained by the skin, aside of the sem->count field, so that should be ok as it is. Is there anything else recorded for tracking the current ownership of a sem-mutex object?

--

Philippe.

_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to