<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"><html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /><style type="text/css">p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }</style></head><body style=" font-family:'Console'; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal;">On Sunday May 10 2009, Joel Sherrill wrote:<br>
> So they are OK with changing the hardware clock on a tested unit and<br>
> invalidating all testing but not upgrading the software. Any change on<br>
> a validated system is a change.<br>
Well, Korean AirForce - are not ordinary people...:-)<br>
May be I do not know everything - this is what I was told...<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p><p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>> We will have to use the collective RTEMS memory on this one. I recall<br>
> a bug that does sound like this.<br>
><br>
> 2005-08-17 Andrew Sinclair <Andrew.Sinclair@elprotech.com<br>
> <mailto:Andrew.Sinclair@elprotech.com>><br>
><br>
> PR 807/rtems<br>
> * rtems/src/timerfireafter.c, rtems/src/timerserverfireafter.c,<br>
> score/src/watchdoginsert.c: Tighten critical section checks on an ISR<br>
> using the same timer being inserted by a lower priority ISR or<br>
> interupt task.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Does this sound like it? It was fixed in 4.6.4 (not 4.6.2)<br>
Hmm... Well.... I don't know... May be yes...<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p><p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>> This only impacted 3 files so is no more of a change than increasing the<br>
> clock frequency. <br>
Joel, excuse me, I am not sure, I understand...<br>
Do you say, that increasing clock frequency, for example, to 10ms per tick, will solve the problem and not make it less probable?<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p><p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>> How is it OK to (*&% with the hardware and not with the<br>
> software.<br>
> Change is (*^ change.<br>
You are right.<br>
I suppose that they were doing some kind of "stress test". But I really do not know.<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p><p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>Really thanks!<br>
-- <br>
Leon<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p></body></html>