Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> Please do not use my address at gmail, gna does not want me to post from
> this address:
> 
> 2008-08-23 12:10:19 1KWq4T-0000zD-9E ** xenomai-core@gna.org 
> <Xenomai-core@gna.org
>> R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp: SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT 
>> TO:<Xenomai-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host mail.gna.org [88.191.250.46]: 550 rejected because 
> gmail.com i
> s in a black list at dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
> 
> so, here is a repost of my answer:
> 
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Hi Gilles,
>>>
>>> trying to understand the cb_read/write lock usage, some question came up
>>> here: What prevents that the mutexq iteration in pse51_mutex_check_init
>>> races against pse51_mutex_destroy_internal?
> 
> Well, I am afraid the mechanism used is not 100% safe. Anyway, the aim
> is to catch most of invalid usages, it seems we can not catch them all.
> 
>>> If nothing, then I wonder if we actually have to iterate over the whole
>>> queue to find out whether a given object has been initialized and
>>> registered already or not. Can't this be encoded differently?
>>>
>>> BTW, shadow_mutex.mutex is a kernel pointer sitting in a user-reachable
>>> memory region? Why not using a handle here, like the native skin does?
>>> Won't that allow to resolve the issue above as well?
> 
> This has been so from the beginning, and I did not change it.
> 

To get registry handles, you first need to register objects. The POSIX skin
still does not use the built-in registry, that's why.

-- 
Philippe.

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

Reply via email to