On 04/03/15 20:24, Joel Sherrill wrote:
This same pattern is in other places so please do it globally across
>>>this patch.
>>>I think I spotted a total of four places.
>>>
>>>Also since this indicates that the thread is at the pseudo-interrupt
>>>priority,
>>>maybe a macro/static inline with a meaningful name would be even
>>>better.
>>>
>>Yes a macro might be good for this test.
>Since we started this discussion. It seems that the MPCI thread is the
>only thread with a priority of 0. Should this be #ifdef
>RTEMS_MULTIPROCESSING? Looks otherwise like dead code. It is possible to
>gain a priority of 0 via the priority ceiling protocol. Is this a bug?
>
No. The timer server has a default priority of 0 also.
I suppose if code called from the timer server used a priority ceiling
mutex,
then it could get an error. But you have to be careful of timer service
routines
anyway.
Ok, this was a bit difficult to see, since it was obscured by the
RTEMS_SYSTEM_TASK attribute.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
