Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> No need for hard nklock protection of kheapq and the map counter, a
>> normal spin lock suffices as all users must run over the root thread
>> anyway.
> At the very least, this should use rthal_spin_lock, in order to seem to
> respect the layering.

Then the conversion would make no sense (hard interrupt lock again).
Given that we are fiddling with Linux mm directly here, there is no hal

> Anyway, do we really want to change this now?

That's a different question. The patch alone does not buy us that much
when we cannot reuse the lock for the heapq.


PS: More invasive changes will come anyway to plug cleanup races in the
heap code.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to