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
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to