On 09.06.21 07:10, Chen, Hongzhan wrote: > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 4:28 PM >> To: Chen, Hongzhan <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cobalt/thread: get rid of dynamic allocation for >> xnthread_signal >> >> On 08.06.21 09:04, Hongzhan Chen via Xenomai wrote: >>> Add one or more "signal slots" per possible cause of in-band signal >>> into struct xnthread to get rid of dynamic allocation. >>> >>> For SIGDEBUG, except SIGDEBUG_WATCHDOG all other SIGDEBUG_* cause >>> including SIGDEBUG_MIGRATE_SIGNAL, SIGDEBUG_MIGRATE_SYSCALL, >>> SIGDEBUG_MIGRATE_FAULT, SIGDEBUG_MIGRATE_PRIOINV, SIGDEBUG_NOMLOCK, >>> SIGDEBUG_RESCNT_IMBALANCE, SIGDEBUG_LOCK_BREAK, SIGDEBUG_MUTEX_SLEEP >>> are synchronous and mutually exclusive due to the oob->in-band transition. >>> But SIGDEBUG_WATCHDOG is triggered asynchronously by the oob timer. >>> >>> All SIGSHADOW_* events need their own slot: SIGSHADOW_ACTION_HARDEN and >>> SIGSHADOW_ACTION_HOME can be raised by remote threads asynchronously to >>> the target thread. SIGSHADOW_ACTION_BACKTRACE comes in addition to >>> SIGDEBUG_MIGRATE_*. For the latter reason, SIGSHADOW_ACTION_BACKTRACE >>> cannot pile up though. >>> >>> Including SIGTERM, we have totally 6 slots. >>> >> >> Please rebase on top of next, rather than wip/dovetail. It will replace >> the related patch in wip/dovetail. > > Actually , the patch is based on > https://lab.xenomai.org/xenomai-rpm.git/log/?h=for-upstream/dovetail. > There is still several patches that current patch is depending on have not > been merged into next. > Do we need to merge into for-upstream/dovetail at first or I should create > new patch for next that I should work on? > Please suggest.
Base on next. This patch has no dependencies on wip/dovetail. It replaces a patch from the bottom of that branch. And it can be tested over, eg., 5.4.y-ipipe as well. Jan -- Siemens AG, T RDA IOT Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
