Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>> I fail to find the NULL spots - which pse51_mutex_timedlock do you mean? >> A few excerpts: > > Ah, you mean checking against non-zero - that can be changed of course. > Updated patch below, hope I caught them all.
Ok. Looks good to me. Minus the bug in mutex_save_count, but this can be changed later. -- Gilles. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaiemail@example.com https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core