On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 15:39 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > IMO, the only advantage of having absolute timers is to be able to apply
> > the posix scheme. So, if I followed correctly your discussion, what we
> > need is:
> > - an XNTBISOL flag with a service xntbase_isol which set this flag and
> >   unshare the target timebase if it is shared (IOW, if aperiodic)
> > - the service xntbase_adjust_time to walk all the absolute timers of the
> >   non isolated timebases and adjust their expiry date or play their
> >   handler the posix way.
> Two questions came up here regarding item #2:
>  - Shouldn't we also adjust the non-monotonic timers of an isolated base
>    if it asks for wallclock tuning? I think so.

When xntbase_adjust_time() is called for an isolated timebase, we want
the real-time timers to be checked for immediate expiry against the new
epoch, and fire those who happen to have "suddently" elapsed.

>  - We don't have a service to walk the list of all pending timers, do
>    we? As that touches all of our timer queue variants and I'm not
>    familiar with their details (except for plain lists...), I would
>    welcome any support on this.
> Jan

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to