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. > Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
