Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >> Same remark for the #ifdefs. > > Yes, but most cases (maybe except for owner checking) are unavoidable > due to heavy differences. I hope that we may have only FASTXNSYCH archs > one day. > >> I also do not understand your modification >> of rt_cond_wait_inner, this code is very tense; posix and native had the >> same bug in this area at different times, so this change should probably >> be made separately. > > Which modification precisely (damn, I need to find out what makes quilt > cause this attachment confusion)? Note that lockcnt tracking changed > with this patch: the lock owner himself is in charge of maintaining it, > not some thread handing the lock over. > > That said, I would happily analyse the case that broke before. I will > also check if I can break out the lockcnt maintenance change, but I > think to recall that it was coupled to the fast path changes.
The point is that in case of rt_cond_wait, the mutex must unlock completely regardless of the current lock count. So, the count is set to 1 before calling the function which unlocks the last level of the recursion count. As far as I can see, you removed the part which sets the counter to 1. -- Gilles. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core