Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 11:20 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 
>>Hi all - and happy new year,
>>
>>I haven't looked at all the new code yet, only the commit messages. I
>>found something similar to my fast-forward-on-timer-overrun patch in
>>#2010 and wondered if Gilles' original concerns on side effects for the
>>POSIX skin were addressed [1]. I recalled that my own final summary on
>>this was "leave it as it is" [2].
>>
> 
> 
> The best approach is to update the POSIX skin so that it does not rely
> on the timer code to act in a sub-optimal way; that's why this patch
> found its way in. Scheduling and processing timer shots uselessly is a
> bug, not a feature in this case.

There is some work to be done on the posix skin anyway, this will all be
at once. By the way, I tested the trunk on ARM, and I still get a lockup
when the latency period is too low. I wonder if we should not compare to
"now + nkschedlat", or even use xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() instead of "now".

-- 
                                                 Gilles Chanteperdrix

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

Reply via email to