Vladimir Cotfas wrote: > Jan, > I may have missed that point. But if the original code already uses > schedule_work, there is likely not much to gain via an RT task: when it > triggers, RT systems are typically already broken. > > I have no problem with error detection, also error recovery. We should > just avoid over-designing (note that every RT task in a system has a > design cost /wrt RT). > The schedule_work may be invoked from a RT context so I thought prudent to > use a semaphore and an RT task (txTimeoutTaxk). > > I don't understand the interactions between Linux's delayed-work scheme > (NAPI, schedule_work, timers) and RATI/etc so I reckoned I mode it all to > RTAI.
For signaling "down" (RT->Linux) we have rtdm_nrtsig. It can fire off a soft-IRQ in Linux context that can then trigger whatever Linux job is required. But I will check the code later on as well and come back with a concrete suggestion. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ RTnet-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rtnet-users
