Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> + rtdm_lock_get_irqsave(&udp_socket_base_lock, context);
>>> + if ((index = sock->prot.inet.reg_index) < 0) {
>>> + rtdm_lock_put_irqrestore(&udp_socket_base_lock, context);
>>> + /* socket is being closed */
>>> + return -EBADF;
>>> + }
>>> + port_registry[index].receiving = 1;
>>> + rtdm_lock_put_irqrestore(&udp_socket_base_lock, context);
>>> +
>> This is the only part of the patch I don't like. I don't want to add
>> another lock site to the RX path. I see the problem, but I think we need
>> some other solution. Maybe something that disables reception, and thus
>> unwanted buffer consumption.
>
> Actually, what we can do is put the "receiving" member in the udp socket
> structure, so that there is no risk, when setting this member to 1, to
> set to 1 the member of another socket.
I meant in the rtsocket structure.
--
Gilles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
RTnet-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rtnet-developers
