> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Fabien MAHOT > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Fabien MAHOT >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I tried your new patch and, now there is no longer issue of priority >>>>> inheritance with a mutex. Thanks a lot for that. >>>>> >>>>> However, there are still problems with my big application. It still >>>>> crashes. >>>>> >>>>> From the test program that you corrected (with check functions), I >>>>> succeeded to reproduce them. >>>>> >>>>> Write function returns "Interrrupt system call" error (EINTR). this >>>>> is >>>>> normal. >>>>> >>>>> but I ve got the same error message with pthread_mutex_unlock. In the >>>>> specification of this function, there is a note about that : "These >>>>> functions shall not return an error code of [EINTR]." (these >>>>> functions >>>>> are >>>>> pthread_mutex_lock, pthread_mutex_unlock, pthread_mutex_trylock) >>>> >>>> Actually I do not know how this can happen, since the EINTR error is >>>> trapped inside pthread_mutex_lock. Will try your example. >>> >>> Ah, I see, it is pthread_mutex_unlock which returns EINTR, not >>> pthread_mutex_lock. I will change this. In the meantime, you can >>> simply ignore the EINTR error: the mutex unlock succeeeded even if it >>> returns EINTR. >>> >>> -- >>> Gilles >>> >> >> OK, thank you. >> >> And do you have an idea about the bug traces ? > > No, I have no idea where this 512 come from. Do you still get it if > you do not call timer_delete in the signal handler ? > > -- > Gilles >
yes, I still get it without timer_delete call in the signal handler _______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
