Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@michaelmcinerney
Copy link
Contributor

This in particular introduces the function
schedContext_unbindReply, which is used within
finaliseCap, as well as invokeSchedContext_Unbind.

This in particular introduces the function
schedContext_unbindReply, which is used within
finaliseCap, as well as invokeSchedContext_Unbind.

Signed-off-by: Michael McInerney <[email protected]>
@michaelmcinerney michaelmcinerney requested review from Indanz and lsf37 June 4, 2025 10:11
@michaelmcinerney michaelmcinerney self-assigned this Jun 4, 2025
@michaelmcinerney michaelmcinerney added verification Needs formal verification input/change, or is motivated by verification MCS issues about the mixed-criticality system config labels Jun 4, 2025
@michaelmcinerney
Copy link
Contributor Author

Since this updates invokeSchedContext_Unbind as well, we should wait until the corresponding L4V PR for finaliseCap_ccorres is merged before merging this PR.

Copy link
Contributor

@Indanz Indanz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks correct.

void schedContextMaybeUnbindNtfn(notification_t *ntfnPtr)
{
sched_context_t *boundSchedContext;
boundSchedContext = (sched_context_t *)notification_ptr_get_ntfnSchedContext(ntfnPtr);
Copy link
Contributor

@Indanz Indanz Jun 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any reason why SC_PTR isn't used here?

And I'd prefer sc or boundSC, which would shorten the line perhaps enough to fit it on one line.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No reason. I might have just copied this style from somewhere else. Maybe I'll go with

sched_context_t *sc = SC_PTR(notification_ptr_get_ntfnSchedContext(ntfn));

This lines occurs exactly in maybeReturnSchedContext, actually, so I guess we have prior art

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should prefer the macro (SC_PTR) when we can.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

MCS issues about the mixed-criticality system config verification Needs formal verification input/change, or is motivated by verification

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants