On 10/01/07, Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + if (!err && name) { > > + xnpnode_t *pnode = &__intr_pnode; > > > > - if (!err) > > - err = > > - xnregistry_enter(intr->name, intr, &intr->handle, > > - &__intr_pnode); > > + if (!*name) { > > + /* Since this is an anonymous object (empty name on entry) > > Isn't a NULL name representing an anonymous object as well?Anonymous objects are supported only for user-space clients. We agreed on it with Philippe when similar code was introduced for other objects. In this case, name is not NULL but "\0" on entry of native::rt_object_create (object = mutex,event,etc.). Now, don't ask me why the same is not applicable for the kernel-side objects as I'll have to think about it (can't recall right now) and may overheat. Likely, just some political issues. Yes, we want to make life of kernel-side developers a bit more difficult. Namely, want an object to be exported via registry? Give a valid name upon its creation.
Although, intr objects would be an exception. As their names are visible not only through the register but also through /proc/xenomai/irq. On the other hand, showing something like 81234560 (an address of the object - if we use xnobject_create_name) instead wouldn't be of any great avail? Ah, at least one would see how many "anonymous" kernel-side handlers are attached to the line. -- Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko _______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
