Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 21:09 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> @@ -234,12 +239,65 @@ int xnheap_init(xnheap_t *heap, >>>> >>>> appendq(&heap->extents, &extent->link); >>>> >>>> + vsnprintf(heap->name, sizeof(heap->name), name, args); >>>> + >>>> + spin_lock(&heapq_lock); >>>> + appendq(&heapq, &heap->stat_link); >>>> + spin_unlock(&heapq_lock); >>> You can not use a Linux spinlock in xnheap_init and xnheap_destroy: >>> - this breaks the build for the simulator; >>> - callers of xnheap_init and xnheap_destroy are not guaranteed to run on >>> the root domain. >> Oh, yes, unfortunately. That callers appear to be fixable, but that's >> probably not worth it at this point. > > There is nothing to fix here. It's part of the service definition to be > able to call it from primary mode.
Strictly spoken not. But given that xnheap_init_mapped does not fulfill this promise and that quite a few users have an either-or use of this tuple, it doesn't buy us much to allow primary mode. Jan
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaifirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core