Philippe Gerum wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Don't raise SIGXCPU while the process is being debugged. These mode >> changes are expected, and reporting them doesn't provide any helpful >> information to the application. Rather, it may raise error storms on the >> application side. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> >> --- >> >> ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c | 3 ++- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c b/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c >> index bcf3b8b..91cf499 100644 >> --- a/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c >> +++ b/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c >> @@ -1082,7 +1082,8 @@ void xnshadow_relax(int notify) >> >> xnstat_counter_inc(&thread->stat.ssw); /* Account for >> secondary mode switch. */ >> >> - if (notify && xnthread_test_state(thread, XNTRAPSW)) >> + if (notify && xnthread_test_state(thread, XNTRAPSW) && >> + !xnthread_test_state(thread, XNDEBUG)) >> /* Help debugging spurious relaxes. */ >> send_sig(SIGXCPU, current, 1); >> > > I would rather identify the source of the switch and clear the notify > flag appropriately from the relax call site.
Sorry, don't get this: What flag do you want to clear? XNTRAPSW? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
