Gavin Lambert wrote: > Actually I'm not sure why fsm_slave shouldn't be made responsible > for both of those things (config->sdo_requests and SDO dictionary > scanning). Doing that would avoid the CoE concurrency issue > altogether.
I didn't make such changes because they would be rather large scale, but I agree it would probably be better design. > (One downside is that all kinds of requests would then be delayed > until the dictionary scan completed, unless this was made less > monolithic. One advantage of Frank's locking patch over this is > that it would still allow other requests [except > create_sdo_requests, unless they were moved to fsm_slave] to > interleave with dictionary scanning, albeit at a slower rate.) It does, though ironically I want to avoid this scenario myself, which is why I made patch #28. ;) 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 _______________________________________________ etherlab-dev mailing list etherlab-dev@etherlab.org http://lists.etherlab.org/mailman/listinfo/etherlab-dev
