Re: OSI Replacement for rebootHookAdd ???

[Eric Bjorklund <bjorklund@lanl.gov>]

On Sep 1, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Andrew Johnson wrote:

> Eric Bjorklund wrote:
> > 2. Would it be reasonable for the vxWorks hook (atReboot.cpp) to register with rebootHookAdd if it did not find sysAtReboot in the symbol table? (at least then I could get my cards disabled -- and I don't really care about the order).
>
> Are you reluctant or unable to add the sysAtReboot mechanism to your BSPs?  The message describing the required change is at http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/tech-talk/2005/msg00004.php

Personally, no, I am neither reluctant or unable.  But I am working on drivers that will be distributed to lots of other sites (which is why I am in to portability these days) and I can't vouch for their situations.  Plus there is just the general inelegance of requiring a special BSP patch in order for our "portable" routines to run.

So I guess the question remains -- would it be reasonable to register the exit handler with rebootAddHooks in the event that sysAtReboot is not found?

-Bj


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Eric Björklund
Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE)

phone: 505-667-6031                                                     email:  bjo@lanl.gov
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
TSPA :: DUSA=ADTO