Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> 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...

I understand that, but names could be generated internally from the object
address, or the registry updated to allow hashing bit patterns as well.


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to