Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Don't raise SIGXCPU while the process is being debugged. These mode
> changes are expected, and reporting them doesn't provide any helpful
> information to the application. Rather, it may raise error storms on the
> application side.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com>
> ---
> 
>  ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c |    3 ++-
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c b/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
> index bcf3b8b..91cf499 100644
> --- a/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
> +++ b/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
> @@ -1082,7 +1082,8 @@ void xnshadow_relax(int notify)
>  
>       xnstat_counter_inc(&thread->stat.ssw);  /* Account for secondary mode 
> switch. */
>  
> -     if (notify && xnthread_test_state(thread, XNTRAPSW))
> +     if (notify && xnthread_test_state(thread, XNTRAPSW) &&
> +         !xnthread_test_state(thread, XNDEBUG))
>               /* Help debugging spurious relaxes. */
>               send_sig(SIGXCPU, current, 1);
>

I would rather identify the source of the switch and clear the notify flag 
appropriately from the relax call site.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xenomai-core mailing list
> Xenomai-core@gna.org
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
> 


-- 
Philippe.

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

Reply via email to