> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Sherrill [mailto:joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: Jennifer Averett; Sebastian Huber; Gedare Bloom
> Cc: rtems-de...@rtems.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] smpschedaffinity05: Change se
rill; Gedare Bloom; Jennifer Averett
>> Cc: rtems-de...@rtems.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] smpschedaffinity05: Change semaphore
>attributes.
>>
>> On 12/11/14 16:39, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> > Daniel Cederman found a bug
>> > in the sem
ent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:41 AM
> To: Joel Sherrill; Gedare Bloom; Jennifer Averett
> Cc: rtems-de...@rtems.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] smpschedaffinity05: Change semaphore attributes.
>
> On 12/11/14 16:39, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Daniel Cederman found a bug
>
On 12/11/14 16:39, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Daniel Cederman found a bug
in the semaphore used to protect the data used to control the
threads and migration.
What is this for a bug?
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47
On 11/12/2014 9:10 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> Are there still tests for when the lock would be held despite the
> context switch? Just want to make sure we're not removing some
> test-case.
That wasn't the purpose of this test. It was to abuse the affinity
algorithm and cause migrations. Daniel Ced
Are there still tests for when the lock would be held despite the
context switch? Just want to make sure we're not removing some
test-case.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jennifer Averett
wrote:
> Change semaphore attributes to resolve problem where semaphore is not
> released upon a context sw
