Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
> the documentation refers to the Native Task Status (T_*) when it comes
> to documenting rt_task_info.status. That is not correct. That field
> contains far more flags than T_* is describing and, even worse, comes
> with two collisions: T_PRIMARY and T_JOINABLE are not reported by
> rt_task_inquire, rather T_RELAX (!T_PRIMARY, arrrg...) and T_HELD.

T_PRIMARY is NOT meant to be reported by rt_task_inquire(), and actually, its
value was picked to collide, to reflect the fact that it was a one-way
specifier. You can't use T_RELAX because what is needed is a bit to force a
transition to primary mode using rt_task_set_mode(), which is the actual source
of all uglinesses. Aside of this, the nucleus naturally wants a "relaxed state"
bit, and would not get any help from a "primary mode" bit for threads.

We could have used a T_RELAX bit to clear in rt_task_set_mode() instead of
T_PRIMARY to set, but unfortunately, such a negative logic would have been
somewhat confusing to users, since what is provided is the secondary -> primary
mode switch.

Sending back the current mode in rt_task_inquire() would lead to two additional
1) if for some reason, we would like to switch the caller to secondary mode at
some point to be able to provide a more complete status, the primary/secondary
status returned would make no sense at all. The fact that we don't do it now
does not preclude the need to do it in future releases.
2) rt_task_set_mode(..., T_PRIMARY) is already vastly misused in a number of
applications, sometimes uselessly, most of the time in a way that event kills
performances. Giving an interface to get back the current mode would close the
loop, triggering a whole set of new terminally silly usage of that hack.
Applications should NEVER use that feature, it was initially designed for
internal code (i.e. RTDM if my memory serves me well). Actually, the more I
think of it, the more I convinced that I'm going to slaughter this crap in 2.5,
providing an internal syscall from the XENOMAI_SYS class instead for use only in
proper contexts.

T_JOINABLE might be reported, though, that is a different story.

> I see two ways out of this:
>  a) Redirect the documentation to the nucleus thread state flags.

Which means that the documentation of the skin depends on the implementation of
the core. Bad idea.

>  b) Redefine the numerical values of T_PRIMARY and T_JOINABLE (the spare
>     bits are unused with the native skin), add missing but possibly
>     interesting flags as T_-constants and ensure that T_PRIMARY and
>     T_JOINABLE are correctly injected on rt_task_inquire from user
>     space.

Maybe for T_JOINABLE. Gilles?

> Somehow I tend to prefer a)...
> Jan


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to