Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> int main( int arc, char *argv[] ) { int i;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rt_print_auto_init(1);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rt_printf("--------------- TEST RT-PRINTF 1 ------------\n");
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sleep(1);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> daemon(0,0);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rt_print_auto_init(1);
>>>>> Ok, understood, at least for the scenario where the rt_print feature
>>>>> is initialised befor the fork/daemon call. What I don't understand
>>>>> is, why it does not work if the rt_print feature is initialised after
>>>>> the fork / daemon.
>>>> From the way I understand your code, you never tried to initialize the
>>>> rt_print feature only after the fork, your code initializes it both
>>>> before and after.
>>>>
>>> There are two initializations: The base init done via __rt_print_init on
>>> library loading and the one to be done per-thread via rt_print_init (or
>>> on first rt_printf). That printer thread is initialized via the former
>>> one. On fork, we do not need to re-run the full __rt_print_init
>>> (variables and resources are cloned on fork), we just need to spawn
>>> another printer thread.
>> Unless I am wrong, rtdk also maintains a list of the thread buffers
>> which need to be polled. After the fork, this list will be intact, but
>> the threads to which belong the buffers will no longer exist. So, IMO,
>> the fork handler should also free all these buffers and reset the list
>> to the empty state.
>
> Famous last words: That should work without tweaking. A print_buffer
> only contains data references, nothing that points to some uncloned thread.
Ok. But you walk the list of print_buffers every time, and these
print_buffers remain allocated in the child process. So, that is a kind
of memory leak.
>
> Jan
>
--
Gilles
_______________________________________________
Xenomai-help mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
