Jürgen,
> After digging deep, I found that our problem was caused by something
> else, so this fix is not needed, but we kept it because we did not like
> that construct as you also point out.
>>
>> If you really expect cyg_mutex_lock to ever return false,
>> then the right thing to do would be
Edlinger.
>
>
>> From: j.lambre...@televic.com
>> To: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org
>> CC: bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
>> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:34:12 +0200
>> Subject: RFC: bsd_tcpip patch on synch.c
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The patch below we a
.@hotmail.de
> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:34:12 +0200
> Subject: RFC: bsd_tcpip patch on synch.c
>
> Hello,
>
> The patch below we already use since 2009. But I did not code the patch,
> so I do not know what problem it solves. Here are our CVS logs about the
> patch:
>
Hello,
The patch below we already use since 2009. But I did not code the patch,
so I do not know what problem it solves. Here are our CVS logs about the
patch:
- To avoid deadlock on mutex 'splx_mutex', I changed 'cyg_mutex_lock'
into 'cyg_mutex_trylock'.
- Add 'trylock' and 'cyg_thread_delay'
