Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Slowly moving on toward generic fast mutex support for Xenomai, this
>> patch is a proposal to address the increasing divergence of
>> owner-tracking vs. owner-less xnsynch objects.
>> The services dealing with the former will likely include a new, lockless
>> prologues for the mutex fastpath. At the the same time, this additional
>> code should not disturb too much in those cases where we do not track
>> ownership (condition variables, events, semaphores etc.). Moreover, I
>> noticed that some of the existing code assumes XNSYNCH_NOPIP means no
>> ownership, which is surely not true. The already visible effect is that
>> lock stealing is needlessly restricted to XNSYNCH_PIP.
>> Going through the API, I dug out three diverging services and replaced
>> them with two new ones:
>> Owner-less xnsynch objects:
>> - xnsynch_sleep_on
>> - xnsynch_wakeup_one_sleeper
>> - xnsynch_wakeup_this_sleeper
>> Owner-tracking xnsynch objects:
>> - xnsynch_acquire
>> - xnsynch_release
>> The latter type of objects are marked with the new flag XNSYNCH_OWNER,
>> used only for debugging and code documentation purposes in the current
>> implementation.
> Any comments on this? I plan to resume the work on fast xnsynch once
> this building block is clarified (or replaced by an alternative).

I have to admit that I have to dig into my e-mails to find back all the
patches to which I have not answered, and this is hard. Is it easy for
you to repost all of them in a unique thread ?


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to