From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Garnett <nickg@redhat.com>
To: "Trenton D. Adams" <tadams@theone.dnsalias.com>
Cc: <ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [ECOS] cyg_cond_signal() without cyg_cond_wait ()
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:04:00 -0000
Message-id: <wwgn14hlejx.fsf@balti.cambridge.redhat.com>
References: <000801c1316c$4503caf0$090110ac@TRENT>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00949.html

"Trenton D. Adams" <tadams@theone.dnsalias.com> writes:

> Ok, that makes sense.  I thought you might have to use another condition
> variable, but I wasn't sure if that was good practice.

Having several conditions within a single critical region is normal
practice.

> However, it
> WOULD be bad practice to lock the scheduler until I'm done doing
> something with the data!

Exactly.

> 
> My other solution of locking the mutex until the start of the next loop
> would work too though right?

Probably, but it is not something I want to seen to encourage. Mutexes
should be kept locked for the minimum period possible.


-- 
Nick Garnett, eCos Kernel Architect
Red Hat, Cambridge, UK