Kurt, On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 10:39 +0100, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > +4.3 Address Claiming
[...] > + If no-one else contest the address claim within 250ms after transmission, > the > + kernel marks the NAME-SA assignment as valid. The valid assignment will be > + kept, among other valid NAME-SA assignments. From that point, any socket > + bound to the NAME can send packets. > + > + If another ECU claims the address, the kernel will mark the NAME-SA > expired. > + No socket bound to the NAME can send packets (other than address claims). > + To claim another address, some socket bound to NAME, must bind(2) again, > + but with only j1939.addr changed to the new SA, and must then send a > + valid address claim packet. This restarts the state machine in the kernel > + (and any other participant on the bus) for this NAME. Do you take care of the NAME arbitration specified in ISO11783 Part 5 before invalidating a claimed SA? For short: if two nodes claim the same SA, then the node with the lower NAME get's the SA and is allowed to operate with. Maybe that's a ISO11783 feature and not used in J1939 - I'm not sure about... Cheers, Felix _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
