Jan Kiszka wrote:

> [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/5412/focus=5405
> 
always-put-xnthread-base-into-registry.patch:
        I understand the need, but I will cowardly let Philippe decide whether
he likes the implementation details.

handle-base-xn_sys_current-1.patch:
        In some places (pse51_mutex_timedlock_inner for instances) you use
XN_NO_HANDLE, in others (pse51_mutex_timedlock for instances) you use
NULL, are the two equivalents ? If yes, should not we always use the
same consistently ? Otherwise looks ok.

remove-xnarch_atomic_intptr.patch:
        Ok.

spread-xeno_set_current.patch:
        Ok. This is even a bug fix.

xnsynch refactoring:
        things have moved too much to see what has really changed in
xnsynch_wakeup_one_sleeper and xnsynch_sleep_on. But is not there a
common behaviour between the old and new services that could be factored
? But otherwise I agree with the general idea of the patch, this is what
we had discussed with Philippe.

-- 
                                            Gilles.

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

Reply via email to