[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-users] Are sys_arch_protect/unprotect required to nest?
From: |
Grant Edwards |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-users] Are sys_arch_protect/unprotect required to nest? |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Nov 2021 18:33:15 -0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) |
On 2021-11-15, Ajay Bhargav via lwip-users <lwip-users@nongnu.org> wrote:
> No, I am not assuming mutext required to be nested either.
but I thought sys_arch_protect/unprotect are required to nest?
> Infact my implementation had only simple lock unlock only. And as
> far as I know, lwip do not use nesting of lock, as its obvious that
> not all system support recursion.
> And lev is usually common return value of isr flags when disable_irq or
> enter_critical is called in most systems and is not a mandatory requirement
> either. Based on your implementation, You may simply return a 0 in protect
> and not use lev in unprotect at all.
So protect/unprotect are not required to nest?
--
Grant