From: Stephan Heinemann <zombie@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: Protected Entry Call Semantics
Date: 1 Oct 2003 20:07:27 GMT
Date: 2003-10-01T20:07:27+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <blfc5v$99c$1@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: DchpYxC0lye$Iwsa@diphi.demon.co.uk
> I don't think that there is any problem here. During the completion of
> the first protected action of the triggering task all the entry queues
> are serviced (9.5.1(7)), so the waiting task will get past the barrier
> at this point. So the fact that the barrier may become closed later
> isn't going to stop it executing. (If I have understood your question
> correctly.)
Thank you Phil for the reference in 9.5.1. I again tested the situation
with a triggering task that opens and closes a barrier without being
preempted by the waiting task. Afterwards the waiting task got
running, it obtained the value corresponding to the opened barrier. The
waiting task - without being preempted again - accessed the protected
object in its response code and obtained the new value corresponding
to the closed barrier... I just was not sure whether this behaviour
depends on the implementation or not. But now there is a reference I
can rely on.
Again, thanks!
Stephan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-10-01 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-30 21:19 Protected Entry Call Semantics Stephan Heinemann
2003-10-01 7:36 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2003-10-01 19:22 ` JP Thornley
2003-10-01 20:07 ` Stephan Heinemann [this message]
2003-10-01 20:14 ` Martin Dowie
[not found] ` <jmtp41-3k4.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com>
2003-10-01 20:18 ` Stephan Heinemann
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox