[En-Nut-Discussion] Ethernut Docu Improvements
harald.kipp at egnite.de
Thu Jan 29 11:36:41 CET 2004
At 10:10 29.01.2004 +0100, you wrote:
>I tried to read/understand the inter-process communication
>which is obviously done using "events" here.
The docs on this topic are at least insufficient
and based on the old X-Windows saying "Use the
On the university I concentrated on documentation,
no big deal if the final product doesn't work. Now
I focus on the product.
Nah, just kidding. Documentation is still most
essential. It's just less fun.
>- the queue is a 16 bit counter and instead of sending
>an event, the task(s) waiting on the "queue" is signaled.
The queue handle is a pointer to a linked list
of thread information structures of all threads
waiting for a specific event.
This priority ordered list of threads queueing up
is called queue.
A single event may be posted to such a queue of
threads, to wake up the thread on top of the queue,
the one with the highest priority among them.
A broadcasted event can be used to wake up all
>- the "queue" turns out to be a semaphore.
Well...mh...yes...no. In a further abstraction
step a queue can be viewed as a semaphore.
It's the basic IPC (inter process communication) element
in Nut/OS and can be used to implement mutual
exclusion semaphores, counter semaphores or
even message queues.
>- if a task waits on a semaphore ("queue") it is put into
I'd put it that way: If a thread is waiting for an event,
it is put into a queue.
In my view, a semaphore is one additional step. Additional
API calls may be implemented, like
>so, I would recommend:
>replace "queue" by semaphore
>replace "event" by signal
>rename event.c to semaphore.c or signal.c
>add a function createSemaphore (HANDLE semaphore) that just sets the
>semaphore value to zero and people know how to start.
Since Nut/OS had been initially build as a most simple
vehicle for implementing a TCP stack, it is limited to
the basic IPC element of events and thread queues.
This limitation isn't a postulated law, though.
>ok, I'm to duck to await YOUR critic.
Critics get bashed in rare cases only. :-)
>a simple question: does anybody need or did implement messsage queues
>or message passing?
I intentionally avoided a message passing OS,
allthough it is very attractive and leads to
very clean implementations.
Somehow it's like comparing C and C++. Considering
clean programming, C++ offers further steps.
But you have to pay for the additional abstraction
with larger and slower code, while C adds just
one layer: Portability. Very generally spoken, of
you can find a meesage queue enhancement, contributed
by Ralph Mason. I must admit, that I didn't find the
time to try it (sorry Ralph). But there is a demand
and I'll try to add it after the 3.4 branch has occured.
Allthough, I'd prefer to get Ralph into the CVS developer
status. (Hint! Hint!)
More information about the En-Nut-Discussion