EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  <20042005  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  <20042005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Forcing a record to be processed
From: "J. Frederick Bartlett" <[email protected]>
To: tech-talk <[email protected]>
Cc: "Bartlett, Fritz" <[email protected]>, "Fuess, Stu" <[email protected]>, "Kersten, Susanne" <[email protected]>, "Krzywdzinski, Stan" <[email protected]>, "Lee, Bill" <[email protected]>, "Savage, Geoff" <[email protected]>, "Sirotenko, Vladimir" <[email protected]>, "Sumowidago, Suharyo" <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:09:01 -0500
  The "Record Reference Manual" states that the FLNK record field has the
following behavior:

	"This field is a database link. If FLNK is specified, processing this
record
	 will force a processing of the scan passive forward link record"

  I have an input record for which the SCAN field is set to a periodic
interval; however, I need to force processing of this record when the
corresponding output record -- both records reference the same hardware
register -- is processed. This is necessary to provide a timely update of
the input record's value so that subsequently processed records, which
reference this input record, obtain the current register value.

  One means to achieve this behavior, which I am currently using, employs a
"dfanout" record to write to the output register and to the VAL field of the
input record. Another method would be to make the SCAN field of this input
record "Passive" and to have a dummy record with its SCAN field set to the
periodic interval and its FLNK field directed to the input record.

  Is there a better way to do all of this? What is the reason for
restricting the forward link action only to records that have their SCAN
field set to "Passive".

											Fritz


Replies:
Re: Forcing a record to be processed Ralph Lange

Navigate by Date:
Prev: Entry 136 in Mantis Jeff Hill
Next: Re: How to add gpib device support Eric Norum
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  <20042005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Entry 136 in Mantis Jeff Hill
Next: Re: Forcing a record to be processed Ralph Lange
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  <20042005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 10 Aug 2010 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·