Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

On 01/22/2018 06:12 PM, Johnson, Andrew N. wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I think you are right about the subtlety of this issue, I seem to remember wanting to make that change many years ago but was persuaded (or I discovered) it would be a bad idea. I think it relates to preventing infinite loops using DB links — if you make that change I suspect a record that FLNKs to itself will eat up 100% of a UP CPU.

yup...  this isn't as simple as I had hoped.  Still, I'd like to explore if this can be fixed.
So down the rabbit hole I go...

https://code.launchpad.net/~epics-core/epics-base/+git/prop-putf/+merge/336468

An attempt to fix this for the specific use case I care about.  When
a scan chain containing async records is originally triggered by
remote user action via. dbPutField().

References:

RPRO inconsistency Michael Davidsaver

Re: RPRO inconsistency Johnson, Andrew N.

Navigate by Date:

Prev: Re: RPRO inconsistency Johnson, Andrew N.

Next: Problems with parallel make in base 7.0.1.1 on Visual Studio 2015 and Visual Studio 2017 when HOST_OP=NO Mark Rivers

Index: 2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  <2018>  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 

Navigate by Thread:

Prev: Re: RPRO inconsistency Johnson, Andrew N.

Next: areaDetector developers meeting @ APS Mark Rivers

Index: 2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  <2018>  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024