Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> 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.
??? Which bug? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
