Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> [1]
> always-put-xnthread-base-into-registry.patch:
>       I understand the need, but I will cowardly let Philippe decide whether
> he likes the implementation details.

I'm ok with the basic purpose of those changes, but if they are aimed at
allowing direct lookups from the xnsynch code into the registry so that base
object pointers can be safely assumed to be returned for threads, I would define
specialized xnthread_register() and xnthread_lookup() calls to explicitly state
that we do want to index struct xnthread pointers, and not any random type as
the registry would otherwise permit.

Also, for readability purpose, please factor the outer lookup code as much as

static inline RT_TASK *lookup_task(xnhandle_t handle)
        return thread2rtask(xnthread_lookup(handle));

> 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.


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to