On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Philippe Gerum <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 22:01 +0200, Ronny Meeus wrote: > > <snip> > >> Next to this I also adapted the task priority automatically using >> following algorithm: >> static int check_task_priority(u_long *psos_prio) >> { >> if (*psos_prio < 1 || *psos_prio > 255) /* In theory. */ >> return ERR_PRIOR; >> /* Do not change priorities <=10 and >= 240. >> * Priorities in between are divided by 4 */ >> if (*psos_prio > 240) >> *psos_prio = 70 + *psos_prio - 240; >> else if (*psos_prio > 10) >> *psos_prio = 11 + ((*psos_prio-10)/4); >> >> if ((int)(*psos_prio) >= threadobj_max_prio - 1) /* In practice. */ >> panic("current implementation restricts pSOS " >> "priority levels to range [1..%d]", >> threadobj_max_prio - 2); >> >> return SUCCESS; >> } >> >> It also works well for our application. >> Please share your thoughts. > > Since we cannot generalize the priority mapping rules, a better way may > be to allow your own code to be called by the pSOS emulator when such > mapping is required. So I have committed a tentative solution, defining > psos_task_normalize_priority() as a weak function, which receives the > pSOS priority, and should return the POSIX one. > > A default implementation is provided by the emulator which does a > trivial 1:1 mapping. > > -- > Philippe. > > >
Philippe as Thomas indicated in his mail today (see PSOS skin: mismatch in function signatures cause buffer overflow), we synced with the forge repo. We used this psos_task_normalize_priority function to remap the priority for our application and it works well. Thanks. Ronny _______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
