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

Reply via email to