|
Re: [REQUEST] eliminate the rthal_critical_enter/exit() from rthal_irq_requ: msg#00197linux.real-time.xenomai.devel
> > Another approach would be to introduce a service like > > xnintr_synchronize() and enfource the upper interfaces (e.g. skins) to > > make use of it in their _delete() methods. > > That would be useful too for solving the "concurrent ISR while deleting > issue", but would not enforce single deletion in the SMP case, I guess. I actually want to introduce this call anyway. The nucleus then provides single xnintr_disabe (nosync) interface + xnintr_synchronize() and a skin is free to introduce both sync and nosync versions on its own. Otherwise, there will be the same problem as with xnintr_detach() - i.e. xnintr_disable (sync) can't be called from a locked section as it's actually done in rt_intr_delete() (of course, if we do really need the atomicy in the later one). > -- > > Philippe. > -- Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [REQUEST] eliminate the rthal_critical_enter/exit() from rthal_irq_request(): 00197, Philippe Gerum |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xenomai thread interuption: 00197, Gilles Chanteperdrix |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [REQUEST] eliminate the rthal_critical_enter/exit() from rthal_irq_request()i: 00197, Philippe Gerum |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [REQUEST] eliminate the rthal_critical_enter/exit() from rthal_irq_request(): 00197, Dmitry Adamushko |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |