On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 22:57, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 10:43:22PM +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > > > > > int xnpod_trap_fault (void *fltinfo)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > if (nkpod == NULL || xnpod_idle_p())
> > > > > > return 0;
> > >
> > > > If an IRQ preempts a real-time thread then triggers a fault,
> > > > xnpod_idle_p() returns false in this handler, since the current thread
> > > > before preemption was _not_ the root/idle one, but a RT one. Hence the
> > > > importance of using xnpod_interrupt_p() too.
>
> > > What happens if a RT-IRQ preempts the linux domaini then triggers a
> > > fault? Then the root-thread is active?
> > > And xnpod_idle_p() returns true.
>
> > >From the xnpod_root_p() / xnpod_idle() predicates, yes.
>
> > > If xnpod_idle_p() returns true, means that the svctable.faulthandler
> > > is not called. Am I right?
>
> > Yes. And that's a shortcoming; i.e. testing for !xnpod_interrupt_p() &&
> > xnpod_idle_p() would be more appropriate here.
>
> Not good. As this is pod code (so probably yours) here's a fix:
>
Applied, thanks.
> > > > > > return nkpod->svctable.faulthandler(fltinfo);
> > > > > > }
>
> Marc
--
Philippe.
