Philippe Gerum wrote:
> 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 ** 
>> <
>>> R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp: SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT 
>>> TO:<Xenomai-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host []: 550 rejected because 
>> i
>> s in a black list at
>> 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.

Well the registry is about associating objects with their name, and
since most posix skin objects have no name, I did not see the point of
using the registry. And for the named objects, the nucleus registry was
not compatible with the posix skin requirements, which is why I did not
use it...


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to