- Am 28. Nov 2018 um 17:00 schrieb Arturo Perez Garcia arturo.pe...@upm.es:
> I didn't call rtems_semaphore_release in the Init task, because the
> initial count of the semaphore is 1. So that was not the case.
Oh, yes, sorry for the confusion. Using a count of 0 makes the creator the
owner.
I didn't call rtems_semaphore_release in the Init task, because the
initial count of the semaphore is 1. So that was not the case.
I followed the guidelines described in RTEMS C User Documentation
Release 4.11.3. Section 12.2 paragraph 2:
"A binary semaphore can be used to control access
to a
On 28/11/2018 11:52, Arturo Perez Garcia wrote:
Yes, I'm checking the return status always. When I create the RTEMS
objects and when I acquire/release the semaphore. I removed those
checks from the code I put in the previous message.
Ok, good.
Thanks.
El 2018-11-28 11:42, Sebastian Huber e
Yes, I'm checking the return status always. When I create the RTEMS
objects and when I acquire/release the semaphore. I removed those checks
from the code I put in the previous message.
Thanks.
El 2018-11-28 11:42, Sebastian Huber escribió:
On 28/11/2018 11:30, Arturo Perez Garcia wrote:
Dis
On 28/11/2018 11:30, Arturo Perez Garcia wrote:
Disabling the caches don't fixe the problem, I was wrong.
Maybe I'm initializing wrongly the RTEMS objects.
In the Init task I create the binary semaphore:
rtems_semaphore_create(a3_sem_name, 1, RTEMS_BINARY_SEMAPHORE |
RTEMS_FIFO | RTEMS
Disabling the caches don't fixe the problem, I was wrong.
Maybe I'm initializing wrongly the RTEMS objects.
In the Init task I create the binary semaphore:
rtems_semaphore_create(a3_sem_name, 1, RTEMS_BINARY_SEMAPHORE |
RTEMS_FIFO | RTEMS_LOCAL, 0, &a3_sem_id);
Then I create 2 tasks w
RTEMS is running in the R5 processors in lockstep mode, hence it is not
an SMP configuration.
Thanks.
El 2018-11-27 14:45, Sebastian Huber escribió:
On 27/11/2018 13:23, Arturo Perez Garcia wrote:
Hi, I have been facing thread synchronization problems.
I was trying to synchronize two threads
