lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Tasks: task #7212, Add Mutex concept in sys_arch
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #7212: Add Mutex concept in sys_arch
Submitter: | Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> | ||
Submitted: | Wed 15 Aug 2007 09:49:27 PM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Should Start On: | Tue 14 Aug 2007 10:00:00 PM UTC |
Should be Finished on: | Tue 14 Aug 2007 10:00:00 PM UTC | Priority: | 1 - Later |
Status: | Done | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | goldsimon | Percent Complete: | 100% |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | 1.4.0 |
Effort: | 0.00 |
Jump to the original submission
Sat 13 Feb 2010 05:34:59 PM UTC, comment #14: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sat 13 Feb 2010 05:12:30 PM UTC, comment #13: Another patch for using SYS_STATS_INC_USED in unix and win32 ports. |
Stephane Lesage <slesage> |
Sat 13 Feb 2010 04:53:38 PM UTC, comment #12:
|
Stephane Lesage <slesage> |
Fri 12 Feb 2010 01:59:55 PM UTC, comment #11: Added mutexes in sys.h, much like proposed in comment #4, only that sys_mutex_lock must not fail (returning void) but instead assert if locking fails. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sat 29 Aug 2009 07:52:43 AM UTC, comment #10: Now that 1.4.0 is under construction, where would we use mutexes?
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Wed 29 Aug 2007 09:13:42 AM UTC, comment #9: No problem to wait post-1.3.0 (that what I proposed in the initial comment). |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 29 Aug 2007 09:00:23 AM UTC, comment #8: Unless anyone disagrees I'm going to suggest this is not a 1.3.0 issue. |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Wed 22 Aug 2007 12:08:06 PM UTC, comment #7:
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Wed 22 Aug 2007 06:19:40 AM UTC, comment #6: [Frédéric's task design]
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 21 Aug 2007 09:56:13 PM UTC, comment #5:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 21 Aug 2007 08:11:17 PM UTC, comment #4: Re comment #2:
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Tue 21 Aug 2007 07:17:42 PM UTC, comment #3: /* Mutex functions. */
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 21 Aug 2007 06:21:50 PM UTC, comment #2:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 15 Aug 2007 11:20:03 PM UTC, comment #1: That seems reasonable. We can provide a default mutex implementation based on semaphores, and leave it to the developer to override if he so chooses. |
Jared Grubb <jgrubb> |
Wed 15 Aug 2007 09:49:27 PM UTC, original submission:
I would like to know your point of view about the fact to add the "mutex" concept in sys_arch (in a post-1.3.0)?
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 8 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010-02-13 | slesage | Attached File | - | Added sys_stats_unix_win32.patch, #19695 | |
2010-02-13 | slesage | Attached File | - | Added stats.patch, #19694 | |
2010-02-12 | goldsimon | Status | None | Done | |
Percent Complete | 0% | 100% | |||
Assigned to | None | goldsimon | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2008-03-25 | kieranm | Planned Release | None | 1.4.0 | |
2007-11-02 | fbernon | Priority | 5 - Normal | 1 - Later |
Powered by Savane 3.13-caa5.
Corresponding source code
Checked in, thanks.