Jan Kiszka wrote:
> I thought about this issue again and found the reason for my vague bad
> feeling: re-init is not atomic, thus racy. But also the test+sem_init
> pattern I suggested is not save.
> I guess we need to enhance rtdm_XXX_init in this regard to make the
> RT-CAN use case an officially allowed one. /me is planning to spend more
> thoughts on this the next days.

OK, done, rtdm_{event,sem,mutex}_init are now protected by the nklock in
trunk. This should make the in-place re-initialisation of RTDM IPC
objects race-free and allow to use them in RT-CAN as originally
intended. I think I will back-port that pieces also to v2.3.x later.

What patch should now go in to avoid double init/destroy and fix rtcan_virt?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to