Thats right In fact I had the ansvar but I just did'nt get the first time. I thougt that nanosleep etc was busy wait because of the "crash". This is a mail recived from Michael Barabanov. Se the mail index Ok, nanosleep/usleep in init_module should cause Linux to hang. The "Linux" RT-thread is suspended, and it means the whole of Linux. Also, you can not use them in an interrupt handler, since it is unpredictable which task is suspended this way. If you use these functions in an RT-thread, they will not hang the system. You can make an RT-thread block on a semaphore, and post it from the interrupt handler. Michael. > > Hi all > > This is a general question. > > > > When using nanosleep, sem_wait, usleep etc. in RT - threds these > > funktion is performed as sleep. it meens the thread is suspended until > > the wakeuptime ore call to sem_post from other thred. thats fine. > > > > But what happens withe these funktions is called from a fifo handler or > > in init_module. I know that nanosleep is busy wait, but what about fx. > > nanosleep is not busy wait, it calls clock_nanosleep wich sets up the timer > marks it selfe suspended and then calls rtl_schedul(). > > hofrat > > ----- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- > -- [rtl] --- > To unsubscribe: > echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR > echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > For more information on Real-Time Linux see: > http://www.rtlinux.org/rtlinux/ -- [rtl] --- To unsubscribe: echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For more information on Real-Time Linux see: http://www.rtlinux.org/rtlinux/
