| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110323154925.GF346@e-circ.dyndns.org> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:49:25 +0100 From: Kurt Van Dijck <kurt.van.dijck@....be> To: Jan Altenberg <jan@...utronix.de> Cc: bhupesh.sharma@...com, wg@...ndegger.com, b.spranger@...utronix.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: can: c_can: TX delivery On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:32:31PM +0100, Jan Altenberg wrote: > Hi, > > > I split your 2 questions in 2 replies. > > Thanks :) > > > not sure if I made my point. Note that this will eliminate the need > > for explicit wrap-around. It's done implicitely. > > Hmmm, I double-checked the datasheet, which gives the following statement: > "The receive/transmit priority for the Message Objects is attached to > the message number. Message Object 1 has the highest priority, while > Message Object 32 has the lowest priority. If more than one > transmission request is pending, they are serviced due to the priority > of the corresponding Message Object." With its predecessor (I used it as IP inside infineon CPU's), this was also true. But I _think_ that object 17 could send before object 16 if its identifier is lower. So, me too wait for Bhupesh ... > I'm quite new to Bosch's c_can, so maybe Bhupesh can give some feedback > (or beat me for causing some confusion ;-)). > > Sorry for the confusion! > Jan > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists