Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 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
> involved.
>> 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.

Wait, there is one advantage: We no longer have to walk kheapq under
nklock in __validate_heap_addr. I think that makes this patch
worthwhile. Will adapt it to avoid conflicts with the simulator.

> Jan
> 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