Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> This series fixes the issues around rt_task_inquire I posted yesterday.
>>>>> Additionally, it introduces an analogous services pthread_inquire_np for
>>>>> the POSIX skin. That allows, among other things, to implement test cases
>>>>> for the upcoming fast xnsynch/mutex patches.
>>>> Ok. Since this applies only for debugging purpose, and displaying
>>>> whether a task is in primary mode may be use badly by users, maybe we
>>>> should make this service a shadow syscall, and not export any interface
>>>> to use it. This would further avoid duplication between the native and
>>>> posix skins.
>>> Debugging is not the holy, exclusive business of Xenomai hackers.
>>> The inquire services are useful in libraries as well, when you want to
>>> check if the caller complies to the call convention ("don't use in
>>> primary mode", "caller's priority must not exceed X" or whatever).
>>> That said, I'm open for unifying the code, maybe introducing some
>>> xnthread_inquire.
>> That would be much better than publishing an open interface to fiddle even 
>> more
>> with thread modes via rt_task_set_mode(). I would definitely merge that.
> Code refactoring is no problem, will work that out. I just want to keep
> the user interface.

Looking into this, I come to the conclusion that xnthread_inquire is
only then a gain if both rt_task_inquire and pthread_inquire_np use the
same data structure layout. And that means that both need to use the
same time encodings, not struct timespec vs. RTIME like it is now. That
would not be beautiful, but feasible (e.g. picking __u64 as type,
passing nanoseconds). Still, it does not yet convince me.


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to