On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:27 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:04 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 09:49 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> reading through the I-pipe patch I noticed that there are quite a few
> >>>> spin_lock->spin_lock_hw and similar conversions. Having the conversion
> >>>> mechanism of the -rt patch in mind, I wrote the attached I-pipe cleanup
> >>>> that applies a similar pattern on this issue. Gives more than 10k patch
> >>>> size reduction for x86 and a bit more safety against minor variations of
> >>>> the patched code. Still, review of the lock usages keeps on being
> >>>> required as the lock user could assume running IRQs off while I-pipe may
> >>>> not guarantee this.
> >>>>
> >>>> The required patch for Xenomai is attached as well.
> >>>>
> >>> I definitely like this. Queued for testing, thanks.
> >>>
> >> Small update of the ipipe part: typecasts were missing for the
> >> SMP||DEBUG_SPINLOCK case.
> > 
> > I saw this recently, thanks. I'm currently working on 1.6-02, which
> > includes the spinlock op selection, and yet-another-rework of the
> > interrupt flow. Did anything changed regarding the tracer in the
> > attached patch?
> > 
> 
> Nope, only the linux/spinlock.h should be different (unless I messed
> something up). Do you get rejects?

No, that's ok. I was wondering whether I should pick changes aside of
spinlock.h, which I have reworked.

> 
> I'm currently preparing to post a few cleanup patches for I-pipe (and
> Xenomai). Not a must for -02, but maybe worth a glance. Just a minute...
> 
-- 
Philippe.



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

Reply via email to