From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6066104d6deadff
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "REH" <spamjunk@stny.rr.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: protected type interrupts
Date: 24 Aug 2006 14:39:08 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1156455548.810837.209000@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1156430839.745932.279060@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
   <l7hkce.c61.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
   <1156436616.384632.192250@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
   <1156443355.219906.237190@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
   <1156446985.794916.61470@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
   <1156454170.983452.318450@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.35.35.34
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1156455554 14424 127.0.0.1 (24 Aug 2006 21:39:14
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:39:14 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1156454170.983452.318450@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Firefox/1.5.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.35.35.34;
   posting-account=lnUIyw0AAACoRB2fMF2SFTIilm8F10q2
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6360
Date: 2006-08-24T14:39:08-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Adam Beneschan wrote:
> I'm just reading what the RM says.  But, although I'm not an expert at
> this, I don't believe your argument makes sense given the way protected
> objects are supposed to work.  A task cannot, of course, access data
> internal to a protected object directly; it has to call one of the PO's
> subprograms or entries to get it.  When it does so, then assuming
> Ceiling_Locking is in effect, no other task can use the PO---but it's
> not because other tasks are blocked, it's simply because the protected
> action runs at a higher priority than any task that could use the PO
> (and the protected action is supposed to complete very quickly).  So no
> mutual exclusion or blocking is necessary when calling protected
> subprograms.  At least I think that's how it works.
>
>                                  -- Adam

That makes sense.  Thanks.

REH