> I have not applied your locking patches as yet, partly because the 1.5.2 > code seems quite different and I'm not sure how to correctly apply them, and > because most of them seem to be focused on locking for RTAI applications, > and (at least at the moment) I'm using a userspace app, which has a somewhat > different locking model.
The issues regarding io_sem (#18, #19, #20) apply to all code, RTAI or not. I've looked at your changes, but as I said, I can't test partially patched versions (and I can't test anything right now anyway), so for now I only picked a few of your changes into my patch set which I also append for reference; basically those changes that seem absolutely safe to me. (I also didn't take most of your reformatting changes. In my patches, I tried to stick to the apparent coding style in 1.5.0; maybe it has changed in 1.5.2, but since my patches are, and possibly might remain, for 1.5.0, I'll stick to that style. I only took a few changes where my version indeed didn't match that style.) > > If it's something else (which I don't see ATM), you could make it wrap- > > around-safe by changing > > > > jiffies_poll > jiffies_sent > > > > to > > > > jiffies_poll - jiffies_sent > timeout_jiffies > > > > and likewise with cycles. (But I wouldn't recommend this without finding > > the root cause of the problem.) > > That's exactly what the existing (pre-patch) code already does though, Sorry, I meant the reverse check (but again, only as a last resort), so datagrams that are just a little "too new" aren't timed out: jiffies_sent - jiffies_poll > timeout_jiffies I'll do this in my version for now. > > One reason would be patch #16 which means datagrams can be queued and > > not sent for a while (instead of corrputing other frame data). > > If so, the change would be in the wrong patch, of course. I'm not 100% > > sure at the moment if something in #11 doesn't also require it, but I > > think #16 is reason enough, so I don't have to check #11 in detail, do > > I? > > It didn't seem to me that #16 needed it, but maybe I missed something. > > 11-mailbox-buffer: > Omits your change to time out QUEUED datagrams as well as SENT ones. > [Remainder of fix for invalid timeout values.] I'm not sure that's the fix, or why this would produce such values (did you try to debug it as I described in my last mail?), so for now I'll stick to my code which works for me. > 28-dictionary-fetched: > Also added to ec_slave_info_t (for ecrt_master_get_slave). > Bumped EC_IOCTL_VERSION_MAGIC to allow userspace apps to detect > incompatible versions. OK, but I think you should also add the line to ecrt_master_get_slave in master/master.c (not only to ecrt_master_get_slave in lib/master.c). > 30-debug-level: > New patch; alters the debug level checks from patch 11 to level 2 from > level 1 for the messages printed in the common case, to reduce log flooding > at level 1. (I made this a separate patch because the original behaviour > can be useful when testing.) In my version, I made this change in #11 directly. (When testing, you can increase the debug level; having more different versions of the patches makes them even more unmaintainable than they apparently already are.) Regards, Frank -- Dipl.-Math. Frank Heckenbach <f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de> Stubenlohstr. 6, 91052 Erlangen, Germany, +49-9131-21359 Systems Programming, Software Development, IT Consulting
ethercat-1.5.0-patches-v2.tar.bz2
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ etherlab-dev mailing list etherlab-dev@etherlab.org http://lists.etherlab.org/mailman/listinfo/etherlab-dev
