Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> 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.
>  > 
>  >  - 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.
> 
> I am afraid for other things than lists, we will have to define an
> xntimerq_iterator which holds a little bit more information than just a
> pointer to a holder.
> 

So we would have to increase the size of each xntimer_t object? Argh.

Sounds a bit like it's worth to have a closer look at some "two timer
lists, one with adjustable offset"-approach...

Jan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

Reply via email to