| 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 <2015> 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 | Index | 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 <2015> 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
| <== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
|---|
| Subject: | RE: Please help with "caput -c" |
| From: | "Mooney, Tim M." <[email protected]> |
| To: | "Zhang, Dehong" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> |
| Date: | Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:01:12 +0000 |
|
Hi Dehong,
I don't understand. All the EPICS records I've used behave correctly when written to by a ca_put_callback, whether they use synchronous or asynchronous device support. Are you writing a new record type, or trying to get asynchronous device support to work with an existing record type, or what? Tim Mooney ([email protected]) (630)252-5417
Software Services Group (www.aps.anl.gov) Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Lab From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Zhang, Dehong [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Please help with "caput -c" Hi Friends,
I am trying to implement an asynchronous record, would like to support this "put callback" feature. From the documentation, it seems I have to do the following:
1. set "pp(TRUE)" for the field the user is going to "caput" 2. make sure only call "recGblFwdLink" (within "process") when the action is finished, or use a BUSY record in the end of the FLNK chain such that it is "DONE" only when the action is finished. -- during this process the PACT field of the original record can go up and down.
I have been playing with all these combinations, and by adding "-w **" after the "caput -c", am getting inconsistent and unreliable results -- it either does not work - calls back immediately, or waits unnecessarily long then calls back. It rarely calls back right after the original record finishes processing and declares the action is finished. Guess I missed something. Please spare a few moments and advice on what exactly I need to do.
(We use 3.14.12-0.4.0, on linux machines).
Thank you very much, Best regards, Dehong
|