On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Sebastian Huber <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-08-19 20:53, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> >> On 2013-08-19 20:42, Gedare Bloom wrote: >>> >>> That's good with me. I assumed you wanted to somehow encode both >>> "!is_scheduled && is_transient" in this "is_in_the_air", but if all >>> you need is to know when the thread is transient, then we should use >>> "is_transient". >> >> >> What this state encodes is: >> >> The thread has an allocated processor (it is a heir or executing thread on >> exactly one processor) and the STATES_TRANSIENT is set (e.g. it is not >> ready >> and thus not a member of a scheduled or ready chain). >> > > I kept the name "is_in_the_air", since "is_transient" turned out to be quite > confusing. I think it is better to have one distinct name for a particular > state. We can change this field easily if we find something better. > OK.I suggest "is_dangling". There is a relationship with "dangling pointers" here.
> > -- > Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH > > Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany > Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 > Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 > E-Mail : [email protected] > PGP : Public key available on request. > > Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. > _______________________________________________ > rtems-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
