Jan Kiszka wrote: > Am 11.11.2010 16:46, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> I just hope we finally converge over a solution. Looks like all >>> possibilities have been explored now. A few more comments on this one: >>> >>> It probably makes sense to group the status bits accordingly (both their >>> values and definitions) and briefly document on which status field they >>> are supposed to be applied. >>> >>> I do not understand the split logic - or some bits are simply not yet >>> migrated. XNHDEFER, XNSWLOCK, XNKCOUT are all local-only as well, no? >>> Then better put them in the _local_ status field, that's more consistent >>> (and would help if we once wanted to optimize their cache line usage). >>> >>> The naming is unfortunate: status vs. lstatus. This is asking for >>> confusion and typos. They must be better distinguishable, e.g. >>> local_status. Or we need accessors that have debug checks built in, >>> catching wrong bits for their target fields. >>> >>> Good catch of the RPI breakage, Gilles! >> Hi Jan, >> >> I just pushed a modified version of this patch, including your remarks >> as well as the ones of Philippe. I suspect some of the cleanup patches >> you sent still make sense over this patch, would it be possible to >> rebase them over this pushed version? > > Just rebased and pushed my queue. One additional optimization was added > ("Optimize setting of XNRESCHED"), basic tests passed.
Ah, I thought about this one, I wonder why I forgot it. Merged, thanks. -- Gilles. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaifirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core