| Re: [threadx-dev] ThreadX - Feature extension plans |
|
Hi Mike, First, thank you for being a loyal TheadX customer!
On the certification front, each new version of ThreadX must be recertified. The last certified version was from several years back. I don’t know the roadmap for any new certifications. As for the feature request, I believe you might be interested in ThreadX Modules: https://github.com/eclipse-threadx/rtos-docs/blob/main/rtos-docs/threadx-modules/chapter1.md https://github.com/eclipse-threadx/threadx/tree/master/common_modules https://github.com/eclipse-threadx/threadx/tree/master/ports_module A Module is separately built (compiled/linked) application code containing one or more threads. It can be loaded dynamically or reside in place. Since it has its own distinct address space
(instruction and data), memory protection (MMU or MPU) can be used to isolate its access from the rest of the application. There is also some time-domain protection by limiting the priority of threads running in the context of a module. I hope this helps! Best regards, Bill From: threadx-dev <threadx-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Skinner, Mike (UK1Y) via threadx-dev Hello everyone, First post here but a long time user of ThreadX. Interesting news that ThreadX is being brought into the open source community. I am still reading through the announcements and related documentation but I am interested
in understanding how the Functional safety certification will be maintained and at what frequency, and who will bear the costs for this? Would it be that users of the RTOS as they incorporate new features would be expected to re-certify these changes, or will the certification be kept up to date in some other way? My apologies for being greedy but I also had a further question on any future features that may be being considered. I know from my previous experience with ThreadX that there were ongoing efforts to provide a “thread
isolation” module such that it was guaranteed (and more importantly assessed and certified to be the case!) that the resources or any errors etc in one thread would not have any effect on other threads. This would allow, in functional safety terms, “functionally
safe” code to run in one (or more threads) and for “non safe” code to run on another thread without danger of interference to the safe code even while operating on the same MCU. Is there any ongoing development effort to provide this feature and certify it? Thank you for your consideration and I am excited to see what the future brings! Mike Mike Skinner Senior Advanced Embedded Engineer Office: +44 1202 645556
This email, its content and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s),
are confidential, subject to copyright and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please delete and contact the sender on the telephone number shown above or via email return. Unless expressly stated otherwise,
and subject to the disclaimer below, this email does not form part of a legally binding contract or agreement between the recipient and City Technology Limited. (Registered no. 1326515 (England)). Registered Office: Honeywell House, Skimped Hill Lane, Bracknell,
Berkshire, RG12 1EB, England. E-mail cannot be guaranteed to be secure, error free or free from viruses. Neither the sending company nor its group of companies accepts any liability whatsoever for any loss or damage which may be caused as a result of the transmission
of this message by e-mail. If verification is required, please request a hard copy version. Any opinions or recommendations expressed herein are solely those of the author. |
