On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 09:22 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe,
> 
> this bug was introduced with recent clock_event modifications:
> 
> --- ksrc/nucleus/timer.c      (Revision 2766)
> +++ ksrc/nucleus/timer.c      (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ void xntimer_tick_aperiodic(void)
>                          translates into precious microsecs on low-end hw. */
>                       __setbits(sched->status, XNHTICK);
>                       if (!testbits(timer->status, XNTIMER_PERIODIC))
> -                             goto out;
> +                             continue;
>               }
>  
>               do {
> @@ -254,7 +254,6 @@ void xntimer_tick_aperiodic(void)
>               xntimer_enqueue_aperiodic(timer);
>       }
>  
> -out:
>       __clrbits(sched->status, XNINTCK);
>  
>       xntimer_next_local_shot(sched);
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like typo, so what was your original intention?

The host timer is no more a purely periodic beast. Since it may be
aperiodic, we ought to get away from the interval update loop, otherwise
we'd remain stuck into it in the aperiodic case.

> The current code at least fails to handle outstanding timers that are 
> enqueued right behind a one-shot host-tick timer.
> 

True, I've been slightly, mmm, radical here. Will merge.

> Jan
> 
-- 
Philippe.



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

Reply via email to