[email protected] wrote: > Kurt, Wolfgang, > thank you for pointing on that issue. > > Well, I guess for the purposes of the test the following simple > construction > is actually enough: > > while( write(s, &tx_frames[send_pos], sizeof(*tx_frames)) != > sizeof(*tx_frames) ) > { > perror("write"); > return 1; > }
Hm, your return in case of an ENOBUF. That's not what you want, right? > If everything is fine, no errors usually occur on this place because of > synchronous operation of canecho_gen and canecho_dut. (txqueuelen of CAN > interface shall be bigger than CAN_MSG_COUNT, I have used txqueuelen of > 1000 both on DUT and test PC). OK, in an official version we should handle the return values properly and as these programs are really useful for checking TX messages going out in order, I would like to add them the the can-utils. Would be nice if you could re-send them with a proper copyright note. > Wolfgang, my error on handling the "write" does not deny the fact, that > the > MSCAN driver works proper now 8) I understood that. Thanks, Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
