Leon Woestenberg wrote:
Hello,
I'm converting an out-of-tree (*1) driver from binary semaphore to mutex.
Userspace updates a look-up-table using write(). The driver tries to
write this LUT to the FPGA in the (video frame) interrupt handler. It
is important that the LUT is consistent and thus
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:02:44 +0100
"Leon Woestenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I'm converting an out-of-tree (*1) driver from binary semaphore to
> mutex.
>
> Userspace updates a look-up-table using write(). The driver tries to
> write this LUT to the FPGA in the (video frame)
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:19:44 +0100
"Leon Woestenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I forgot to mention that I would like to be prepared for, and use the
> -rt patch soon. I understand (maybe wrongly?) that semaphores are not
> real-time pre-emptible, mutexes and spinlocks are.
Semaphores are
Hello,
On Nov 22, 2007 5:11 PM, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 22 November 2007 schrieb Leon Woestenberg:
> > I would like to know why this is not so, and if someone has a cleaner
> > proposal than the "try spinlock" approach?
>
> Keep the semaphore.
>
I forgot to
Am Donnerstag 22 November 2007 schrieb Leon Woestenberg:
> I would like to know why this is not so, and if someone has a cleaner
> proposal than the "try spinlock" approach?
Keep the semaphore.
Regards
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Hello,
I'm converting an out-of-tree (*1) driver from binary semaphore to mutex.
Userspace updates a look-up-table using write(). The driver tries to
write this LUT to the FPGA in the (video frame) interrupt handler. It
is important that the LUT is consistent and thus changed atomically.
Note
Hello,
I'm converting an out-of-tree (*1) driver from binary semaphore to mutex.
Userspace updates a look-up-table using write(). The driver tries to
write this LUT to the FPGA in the (video frame) interrupt handler. It
is important that the LUT is consistent and thus changed atomically.
Note
Hello,
On Nov 22, 2007 5:11 PM, Oliver Neukum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag 22 November 2007 schrieb Leon Woestenberg:
I would like to know why this is not so, and if someone has a cleaner
proposal than the try spinlock approach?
Keep the semaphore.
I forgot to mention that I
Am Donnerstag 22 November 2007 schrieb Leon Woestenberg:
I would like to know why this is not so, and if someone has a cleaner
proposal than the try spinlock approach?
Keep the semaphore.
Regards
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:19:44 +0100
Leon Woestenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I forgot to mention that I would like to be prepared for, and use the
-rt patch soon. I understand (maybe wrongly?) that semaphores are not
real-time pre-emptible, mutexes and spinlocks are.
Semaphores are
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:02:44 +0100
Leon Woestenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm converting an out-of-tree (*1) driver from binary semaphore to
mutex.
Userspace updates a look-up-table using write(). The driver tries to
write this LUT to the FPGA in the (video frame) interrupt
Leon Woestenberg wrote:
Hello,
I'm converting an out-of-tree (*1) driver from binary semaphore to mutex.
Userspace updates a look-up-table using write(). The driver tries to
write this LUT to the FPGA in the (video frame) interrupt handler. It
is important that the LUT is consistent and thus
12 matches
Mail list logo