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