[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses
From: |
Pawel Kot |
Subject: |
Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:10:54 +0100 |
>>> address@hidden 25 February 2003 00:22:58 >>>
> IMHO moving the call of the sm_incoming_acknowledge() function into
the
> fb3110_message_send() or fb3110_tx_frame_send() can solve this
problem.
But this is ugly. Maybe just add another argument for the sm_block()
functions and use it as the bitmap field? Eg:
#define GN_SM_RETRY_WHEN_NO_ACK 1
#define GN_SM_RETRY_WHEN_NO_ANSWER 2
caller:
sm_block(GN_SM_RETRY_WHEN_NO_ACK | GN_SM_RETRY_WHEN_NO_ANSWER,
waitfor, timeout, data, state)
or
sm_block(GN_SM_RETRY_WHEN_NO_ANSWER,
waitfor, timeout, data, state)
or
sm_block(0,
waitfor, timeout, data, state)
And the optional loops in sm_block() or __sm_block(). What about it?
pkot
- Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses, (continued)
- Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses, Osma Suominen, 2003/02/24
- Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses, Pawel Kot, 2003/02/24
- Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses, Pawel Kot, 2003/02/24
- Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses, Pawel Kot, 2003/02/24
- Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses,
Pawel Kot <=
- Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses, Pawel Kot, 2003/02/25
- Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses, Pawel Kot, 2003/02/25
- Re: statemachine flaws/weaknesses, Pawel Kot, 2003/02/25