| ??? 03/03/08 15:55 Read: times |
#151817 - why ugly? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Christoph Franck said:
2b. It can set some sort of flag indicating that it tried to get the mutex and failed. The critical section could, at the very end, evaluate this flag and take some action to resolve the situation. To me, this appears to be a fairly ugly hack. In business, love and embedded programming, everything is allowed... :-) One of the ways in which (small) embedded programming differs from "commonplace" programming is, that it often squeezes out much more perfomance from less megahertz and kilobyte than it's "big" counterpart. That's the reason why the comfortable but resource-hungry frameworks such as multitasking and multilevel operation systems are not suitable for this world (although many try to squeeze it in somehow). On the other hand, it also means that human brain is what feeds these little bugs the best. I don't say it should be a commonly used solution to "delay" an interrupt, but I would also never refrain from using it, once I would find this (or any other) technique justified for the case... JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Reposted: Critical section implementation on 8051? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| JBC as mutex | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why ugly? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| atomicity and IE | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Because ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
"short interrupts" is just another paradigm... | 01/01/70 00:00 |