On 21/12/17 22:19, Chris Johns wrote:
Finally, the ticket referenced in some of the patches (2843) has a milestone of
6.1. Are the self-contained objects going in 5.1?
It exists now. My understanding is the only thing missing is thread support but
Sebastian can provide more detail here.
The
On 21/12/17 16:48, Cudmore, Alan P. (GSFC-5820) wrote:
I like the idea of higher performance locking and the reduced need for error
checking. We have had internal debates on how much error checking needs to be
done when locking and unlocking a mutex for a shared data structure.
The main goal
On 22/12/2017 02:48, Cudmore, Alan P. (GSFC-5820) wrote:
> I like the idea of higher performance locking and the reduced need for error
> checking. We have had internal debates on how much error checking needs to be
> done when locking and unlocking a mutex for a shared data structure.
Agreed,
I like the idea of higher performance locking and the reduced need for error
checking. We have had internal debates on how much error checking needs to be
done when locking and unlocking a mutex for a shared data structure.
Are these new APIs in addition to the classic RTEMS APIs for similar ob
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
>
> On 02/02/17 16:56, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> +Condition Variables
> >>>+===
> >>>+
> >>>+The :c:type:`rtems_condition` provides a condition variable
> >>>synchronization
> >>>+object.
> >>>+
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:09 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
>
> On 02/02/17 16:56, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> +.. c:function:: void
> rtems_binary_semaphore_post(rtems_binary_semaphore
> >>>*semaphore)
> >>>+
> >>>+Posts the binary semaphore. In case at least one thread is waiti
On 02/02/17 16:56, Gedare Bloom wrote:
+.. c:function:: void rtems_binary_semaphore_post(rtems_binary_semaphore
>>>*semaphore)
>>>+
>>>+Posts the binary semaphore. In case at least one thread is waiting on
>>>the
>>>+binary semaphore, then the highest priority thread is woken up,
>>>otherwise
On 02/02/17 16:56, Gedare Bloom wrote:
+Condition Variables
>>>+===
>>>+
>>>+The :c:type:`rtems_condition` provides a condition variable
>>>synchronization
>>>+object.
>>>+
>>>+.. c:type:: rtems_condition
>>>+
I missed saying this. Maybe 'rtems_condition_variable', or
'rtems_co
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
>
> On 02/02/17 16:26, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Sebastian Huber
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Update #2843.
>>> ---
>>> c-user/index.rst | 1 +
>>> c-user/self_contained_objects.rst | 337
>>>
On 02/02/17 16:26, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
Update #2843.
---
c-user/index.rst | 1 +
c-user/self_contained_objects.rst | 337 ++
2 files changed, 338 insertions(+)
create mode 10064
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> Update #2843.
> ---
> c-user/index.rst | 1 +
> c-user/self_contained_objects.rst | 337
> ++
> 2 files changed, 338 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 c-user/self_contained_objects.r
This is a proposal for a new user API for self-contained objects which
can be used also internally for device drivers and support libraries
(e.g. bdbuf, Termios).
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax :
12 matches
Mail list logo
