Sergei Organov osv at javad.com
Thu Mar 22 09:23:27 UTC 2007

Eric Norum <norume at aps.anl.gov> writes:
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Sergei Organov wrote:
>> As for changing current semantics of RTEMS_SIMPLE_BINARY_SEMAPHORE,
>> I'm
>> afraid some existing code might be affected, and adding yet another
>> different kind of "semaphore" may add to already existing confusion.
> I don't think that you would be changing the semantics (other than
> fixing a possible bug) -- how many ways are there for a simple binary
> semaphore to operate?
>> Anyway, if decision will be to add true binary semaphores support to
>> the RTEMS API, I'll be happy to provide a patch. [Note that RTEMS
>> kernel does have the support].
> I vote yes.
> Any comments from the rest of you folks out there?

I'd like first to understand why RTEMS_SIMPLE_BINARY_SEMAPHORE has been
implemented through kernel mutex in the first place. If there were no
sound reasons, then I'd go with switching to implementation through
kernel semaphore.

Anyway, am I right that the OP is using rather old RTEMS version when he
encounters the problem? If so, it could be the case that the problem
with unlocking from ISR has been already fixed.


More information about the users mailing list