Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > 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.
Ah, ok. Forgot about this as some of my rejected patches changed that part anyway. 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
