Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 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?

The fact that mutex_save_count uses xnsynch_nsleepers instead of
mutex->sleepers.

-- 
                                                 Gilles.

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

Reply via email to