From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5737 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2003 11:14:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5730 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2003 11:14:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pentafluge.infradead.org) (213.86.99.235) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2003 11:14:38 -0000 Received: from fish.redhat.com ([213.86.99.237] helo=[172.16.18.64]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with asmtp (Exim 4.22 #5 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1APgbZ-0003fW-Dh; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:16:09 +0000 From: David Woodhouse To: Vincent Catros Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <000001c3b4c7$023894e0$7407a8c0@figuier> References: <000001c3b4c7$023894e0$7407a8c0@figuier> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1070018075.10048.29.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:14:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dwmw2@infradead.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Pentafluge-Mail-From: Subject: Re: [ECOS] RE : [ECOS] Is JFFS2 thread-safe? X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00424.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 10:15 +0100, Vincent Catros wrote: > If I understand, JFFS2 should be thread safe, but this has never been > tested since multual access is avoided by fileio layer when using > CYG_SYNCMODE_FILE_FILESYSTEM flag? It's never been tested under eCos, although the same JFFS2-internal locking is well-tested under Linux. If there are bugs, they are with the mapping from Linux locking primitives to eCos locking primitives. In particular, in the presence of preemptive scheduling I suspect that the spin_lock() primitive should be getting a scheduler lock. -- dwmw2 -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss