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

Reply via email to