On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> A thread join twofold. One side uses a thread queue and the other not.
> So we must not use the same state.
>
> Update #2035.
> ---
> cpukit/libmisc/monitor/mon-prmisc.c | 1 +
> cpukit/posix/src/pthreadjoin.c | 2 +-
> cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/statesimpl.h | 4 +++-
> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/cpukit/libmisc/monitor/mon-prmisc.c
> b/cpukit/libmisc/monitor/mon-prmisc.c
> index ff54d79..f981a4e 100644
> --- a/cpukit/libmisc/monitor/mon-prmisc.c
> +++ b/cpukit/libmisc/monitor/mon-prmisc.c
> @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ static const rtems_assoc_t rtems_monitor_state_assoc[] = {
> { "ZOMBI", STATES_ZOMBIE, 0 },
> { "MIGRA", STATES_MIGRATING, 0 },
> { "RESTA", STATES_RESTARTING, 0 },
> + { "Wjoin", STATES_WAITING_FOR_JOIN, 0 },
Does the order matter here, or can the state be located next to "Wjatx"?
> { 0, 0, 0 },
> };
>
> diff --git a/cpukit/posix/src/pthreadjoin.c b/cpukit/posix/src/pthreadjoin.c
> index 99cc4d3..e2b1664 100644
> --- a/cpukit/posix/src/pthreadjoin.c
> +++ b/cpukit/posix/src/pthreadjoin.c
> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ on_EINTR:
> _Thread_queue_Enqueue(
> &api->Join_List,
> executing,
> - STATES_WAITING_FOR_JOIN_AT_EXIT | STATES_INTERRUPTIBLE_BY_SIGNAL,
> + STATES_WAITING_FOR_JOIN | STATES_INTERRUPTIBLE_BY_SIGNAL,
> WATCHDOG_NO_TIMEOUT
> );
> }
> diff --git a/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/statesimpl.h
> b/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/statesimpl.h
> index 074b352..9f94675 100644
> --- a/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/statesimpl.h
> +++ b/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/statesimpl.h
> @@ -84,6 +84,8 @@ extern "C" {
> #define STATES_MIGRATING 0x400000
> /** This macro corresponds to a task restarting. */
> #define STATES_RESTARTING 0x800000
> +/** This macro corresponds to a task waiting for a join. */
> +#define STATES_WAITING_FOR_JOIN 0x1000000
>
> /** This macro corresponds to a task which is in an interruptible
> * blocking state.
> @@ -97,7 +99,7 @@ extern "C" {
> STATES_WAITING_FOR_SEMAPHORE | \
> STATES_WAITING_FOR_MUTEX | \
> STATES_WAITING_FOR_CONDITION_VARIABLE | \
> - STATES_WAITING_FOR_JOIN_AT_EXIT | \
> + STATES_WAITING_FOR_JOIN | \
Is it right to remove WAITING_FOR_JOIN_AT_EXIT here?
Is it possible to replace all WAITING_FOR_JOIN_AT_EXIT with
WAITING_FOR_JOIN? Then the enum and bit values can be just renamed.
> STATES_WAITING_FOR_SIGNAL | \
> STATES_WAITING_FOR_BARRIER | \
> STATES_WAITING_FOR_BSD_WAKEUP | \
> --
> 1.8.4.5
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel@rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
