* Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-09 12:28]: > > This overwriting only takes place if timeout_seq is non-NULL. Otherwise, > we are in "usual" timeout mode.
Yes, of course, you're right. It was too late when I wrote this mail. I oversaw the NULL case. > > Maybe > > > > * @param[in] timeout Relative timeout, see > > * @ref RTDM_TIMEOUT_xxx for special values (any positive value > > * means the timeout specified in the timeout sequence) > > > > or something like that. > > No, that's wrong then. I guess we rather need something like this: > > "@param[in] timeout Relative timeout in nanoseconds, see @ref > RTDM_TIMEOUT_xxx for special values; pass the overall timeout of the > related series if timeout_seq is non-NULL" > > Does this help to clarify the situation? BTW, the same applies to > rtdm_sem_timeddown and rtdm_mutex_timeddown, all of those could be > combined in such a series. Yes, that would make it clear. > RTDM specification and development only take place over Xenomai, RTAI > later adopts what we implement here. And this will quite likely remain > so in the future. Therefore, the best place to discuss also abstract > RTDM question is here, maybe later on a dedicated xenomai-drivers list > when the traffic increases. > > For oddities of the RTAI implementation there is still the RTAI list > where I'm subscribed as well and can jump in when required. Ah, ok. Didn't know that you're subscribed, that's why I CC'd you. Regards, Bernhard -- OpenPGP Schlüssel-ID: B69454FD (kurz) / E8951E8FB69454FD (lang) Fingerprint: F3BE B2A7 8161 2986 ABA4 9AB9 E895 1E8F B694 54FD
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaifirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core