<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
The only legit way to create an ErlNifEnv is to call
enif_alloc_env().<br>
<br>
I bet the compiler warned about your static ErlNifEnv<br>
just before you went hunting for erts internal header files :-)<br>
<br>
In OTP-19.0 the 'msg_env' argument to enif_send() can be NULL<br>
in which case the message will be copied and you can reuse<br>
the environment for the next message with enif_clear_env().<br>
This is effective if the message is small.<br>
<br>
/Sverker, Erlang/OTP<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/30/2016 08:31 PM, Igor Clark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:508348d9-30ee-c5ce-cc80-a4ce5d530759@gmail.com"
type="cite">Thanks Daniel, good to hear.
<br>
<br>
Thanks also Roger & Sergej for your replies. I'll try out
enif_alloc_env()'ing a new ErlNifEnv each time the callback uses
enif_send(), rather than just leaving it static.
<br>
<br>
Cheers!
<br>
<br>
Igor
<br>
<br>
On 30/06/2016 07:45, Daniel Goertzen wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Static vs priv_data are functionally the
same here so it doesn't matter which way you go. I can
empathize with your sense of dread; there are a lot of rules to
keep track of for keeping Undefined Behavior at bay. But you
seem to have a good handle on things.
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:02 AM Igor Clark
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:igor.clark@gmail.com">igor.clark@gmail.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:igor.clark@gmail.com"><mailto:igor.clark@gmail.com></a>>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
Hi folks,
<br>
<br>
I've got a NIF that uses some library code to talk to
specific
<br>
hardware.
<br>
It's a hobby project with only one user (me) and no real
performance
<br>
concerns, so what I've got works well at the moment, but I
think I'm
<br>
doing some sneaky/dirty stuff and would like to know the
best way
<br>
to do
<br>
what I need.
<br>
<br>
Sending messages outwards from erlang->C->HW is easy,
very quick, and
<br>
works fine. I return a pointer to the HW reference back to
erlang
<br>
using
<br>
the enif_*_resource functions, and manage keeping track of
<br>
everything on
<br>
the erlang side, which feels pretty natural.
<br>
<br>
Coming the other way works fine too, but relies on a C
function
<br>
callback
<br>
which gets called when the hardware has a message for me.
Right now I
<br>
just have a static function in the NIF C code which I pass
to the
<br>
library. I create a static ErlNifEnv on NIF load() which I
keep around
<br>
and use in the callback to send messages to a specified
erlang Pid,
<br>
passed in via enif_get_local_pid() in another NIF function
and also
<br>
stored statically. This works a treat, but I'm feeling some
pretty
<br>
strong dread that it's very much the wrong way to do things,
and
<br>
asking
<br>
for scheduler headaches/explosions.
<br>
<br>
I'm planning to try storing the various resources in
priv_data at
<br>
load()
<br>
time, on the theory that that way the memory would at least
be managed
<br>
by the NIF system rather than just as enif_alloc()'ing
static
<br>
pointers,
<br>
but I'm not sure if that would make any diffrence if code
external to
<br>
the scheduler calls back into it.
<br>
<br>
I've looked into running this part as a C node or a port
that sends
<br>
messages with the HW data in a callback in its own process,
and the
<br>
communication seems straightforward enough, but it also
seems like I
<br>
immediately need to start designing mechanisms to deal with
<br>
working out
<br>
where to send received messages, almost a protocol in
itself. Whereas
<br>
with the NIF+callback method I have a lot of the work done
for me -
<br>
except, of course, for the synchronisation and memory
management,
<br>
which
<br>
is the bit I'm worried about.
<br>
<br>
FWIW the callback code doesn't modify any of the static data
<br>
structures
<br>
directly, it just calls library code which uses the stored
<br>
references to
<br>
work out which hardware device & channel to send the
message to.
<br>
<br>
What's the best practice here? Is a callback in a NIF OK if
it's
<br>
stored
<br>
in priv_data, or is it never OK? What's the best way to do
this if
<br>
not?
<br>
<br>
Would appreciate any tips!
<br>
<br>
Cheers,
<br>
Igor
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
erlang-questions mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org"><mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions">http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions">http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>