On 6/13/2013 4:53 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
What do you mean? I would expect that selecting this scheduler when
SMP is not enabled will issue an error in confdefs.h, although I see
the current logic is to fall back to the default (priority) scheduler.
configure with --enable-smp. That builds with SMP support.
But around line 632 of confdefs.h, it has
#if defined(RTEMS_SMP) && defined(CONFIGURE_SMP_APPLICATION)
#define CONFIGURE_SCHEDULER_SIMPLE_SMP
#else
#define CONFIGURE_SCHEDULER_PRIORITY
#endif
So even with --enable-smp, only the smptests get the SMP scheduler.
The uniprocessor tests use the known good scheduler. You have
to hack that conditional to use the other scheduler.
FWIW I know it is better to tests SMP priority schedulers against
all uniprocessor tests. But what should the uniprocessor scheduler
default default to?
The old simple scheduler passed all the uniprocessor tests. I am
asking if this one does also.
--joel
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Joel Sherrill
<joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com> wrote:
Hi
Out of curiosity, did you hack confdefs.h to force this as the
scheduler in uniprocessor configurations to ensure it does
the correct things in that situation?
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
_______________________________________________
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel@rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
_______________________________________________
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel@rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
