Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:46:26 -0400
At 08:30 AM 8/12/1999 , Robert L. Spooner wrote:
>Roger Racine wrote:
>> Is there any good reason to
>> create a separate task that must be run after some other task? That seems
>> like a waste of effort (just put the processing of the second task after
>> the processing in the first task, and get rid of the second task). It is
>> also somewhat a waste of CPU time, since there is no need for a change of
>> context if there is no possibility of concurrency.
>An example of when this would need to be done is when you have an interrupt
>service routine that does some preliminary processing of data (such as
>and then hands the data off to a lower-priority task for further
>may not be able to do all the processing in the ISR because it may have to
>often. The lower-priority task can then take the time it needs to
>processing without inhibiting servicing of the interrupts.
Sorry, I should have been more specific in my question. Is there any good
reason to create a separate task, at the same priority as the first, that
must be run after some other task?
Draper Laboratory, MS 31
555 Technology Sq.
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA