Mason wrote:
> AFAIU, mutexes do not make a system immune to priority inversion.
>
> Consider 3 processes of increasing priority L, M, H.
>
> Suppose L locks a mutex; then H waits for the mutex; then M starts
> running and preempts L : H will never run, as long as M runs.
That's exactly the ca
Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> "Define LWIP_COMPAT_MUTEX if the port has no mutexes and binary
> semaphores should be used instead". The only disadvantage of using
> binary semaphores (in this case, the sys_mutex_* functions are
> defined to their sys_sem_* substitute) is that you can get priority
> i
users
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] mutex API in system layer is necessary ?
vincent cui wrote:
> Yes, they are same ...
> I am confused that nobody meet this kind of problem
Still, please just don't re-post (and do keep the summary in sync with a post's
content). You risk annoying peopl
On 08/05/2012 06:20, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> vincent cui wrote:
>> I had port latest lwip1.4.0 to my system, it works well . but I found some
>> additional api about mutex are defined in 1.4.0
>>
>> I want to know that are they necessary ?
>
> No, as it says in sys.h: "Define LWIP_COMPAT_MUT
vincent cui wrote:
> Yes, they are same ...
> I am confused that nobody meet this kind of problem
Still, please just don't re-post (and do keep the summary in sync with a post's
content). You risk annoying people with this behaviour and as a result you will
get even less responses.
Simon
--
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] mutex API in system layer is necessary ?
vincent cui wrote:
> I use the following code to receive file from client tool, the receive
> speed will be up to down after send 3 times .
> Is it LWIP bug ?
How in the world is this question related to the summary of
vincent cui wrote:
> I use the following code to receive file from client tool, the receive
> speed will be up to down after send 3 times .
> Is it LWIP bug ?
How in the world is this question related to the summary of your post??? Isn't
that the same question you asked in your other post ("rece
5月8日 13:21
To: Mailing list for lwIP users
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] mutex API in system layer is necessary ?
vincent cui wrote:
> I had port latest lwip1.4.0 to my system, it works well . but I found some
> additional api about mutex are defined in 1.4.0
>
> I want to know that are t
vincent cui wrote:
> I had port latest lwip1.4.0 to my system, it works well . but I found some
> additional api about mutex are defined in 1.4.0
>
> I want to know that are they necessary ?
No, as it says in sys.h: "Define LWIP_COMPAT_MUTEX if the port has no mutexes
and binary semaphores shou
All:
I had port latest lwip1.4.0 to my system, it works well . but I found some
additional api about mutex are defined in 1.4.0
I want to know that are they necessary ?
err_t sys_mutex_new(sys_mutex_t *mutex)
{
return ERR_OK;
}
void sys_mutex_lock(sys_mutex_t *mutex)
{
}
void sys_m
10 matches
Mail list logo
