On 3/31/2015 1:00 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> ---
> cpukit/score/src/threadsetstate.c | 13 ++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/cpukit/score/src/threadsetstate.c
> b/cpukit/score/src/threadsetstate.c
> index 02ee70e..8114d70 100644
> --- a/cpukit/score/src/threadsetstate.c
> +++ b/cpukit/score/src/threadsetstate.c
> @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@
> #endif
>
> #include <rtems/score/threadimpl.h>
> -#include <rtems/score/isrlevel.h>
> #include <rtems/score/schedulerimpl.h>
>
> void _Thread_Set_state(
> @@ -31,17 +30,17 @@ void _Thread_Set_state(
> )
> {
> ISR_lock_Context lock_context;
> - States_Control current_state;
> + States_Control previous_state;
> + States_Control next_state;
>
Would it make sense to put a debug assert here that the state being
set is non-zero?
Otherwise, unless there are logically more self-checks, I don't have
a problem with this patch set.
Did it reduce code size any?
> _Scheduler_Acquire( the_thread, &lock_context );
>
> - current_state = the_thread->current_state;
> - if ( _States_Is_ready( current_state ) ) {
> - the_thread->current_state = state;
> + previous_state = the_thread->current_state;
> + next_state = _States_Set( state, previous_state);
> + the_thread->current_state = next_state;
>
> + if ( _States_Is_ready( previous_state ) ) {
> _Scheduler_Block( the_thread );
> - } else {
> - the_thread->current_state = _States_Set( state, current_state);
> }
>
> _Scheduler_Release( the_thread, &lock_context );
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
