This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: AW: contributing a failsafe update meachanism for FIS from within ecos applications
- From: "Slawek" <sgp at telsatgp dot com dot pl>
- To: "Neundorf, Alexander" <Alexander dot Neundorf at jenoptik dot com>,"Andrew Lunn" <andrew at lunn dot ch>
- Cc: <ecos-devel at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:31:50 +0200
- Subject: Re: AW: contributing a failsafe update meachanism for FIS from within ecos applications
- Fl-build: Fidolook 2002 (SL) 6.0.2800.86 - 14/6/2003 22:16:25
- References: <5A8A17126B73AC4C83968F6C4505E3C501344599@JO-EX01.JENOPTIK.NET>
In message to "Andrew Lunn" <firstname.lastname@example.org> sent Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:11:18
+0200 you wrote:
NA> #define EFIS_VALID (0xa5a5)
NA> #define EFIS_IN_PROGRESS (0xfdfd)
NA> #define EFIS_EMPTY (0xffff)
Some additional ideas from somebody who watches the conversation:
1) Why do we need EFIS_IN_PROGRESS? Isn't EFIS_EMPTY enough? Both can't be
used to load the application anyway.
2) ".FisValid" suggest this is valid FIS entry while it doesn't need to be.
Why don't use separate name for valid and for invalid (empty or in progress)
fis tables? This could also save additional space used to mark
"valid/invalid" as this could be decided be the name.