-Original Message- From: Gilles Chanteperdrix
*IXP4XX_OSRT1 = LATCH | ONE_SHOT_ENABLE;
In fact, should not this be:
*IXP4XX_OSRT1 =
(last_jiffy_time + LATCH - *IXP4XX_OSTS) |
ONE_SHOT_ENABLE;
Nope, we are using GP Timer 1. It counts
Richard Cochran wrote:
-Original Message- From: Gilles Chanteperdrix
*IXP4XX_OSRT1 = LATCH | ONE_SHOT_ENABLE;
In fact, should not this be:
*IXP4XX_OSRT1 =
(last_jiffy_time + LATCH - *IXP4XX_OSTS) |
ONE_SHOT_ENABLE;
Krause, Karl-Heinz wrote:
Hi Philippe
as promised some time ago, I'd like to let you know the result of our work.
Attached are
- a few recycled slides from a presentation describing motivation,
features and results
- the patch file for a
Hi Philippe,
here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64
under different gcc compilers:
unsigned long x = 0;
int n = 32;
x |= 1 n;
The last instruction translates to:
mov0xfffc(%rbp),%ecx
mov$0x1,%eax
Richard Cochran wrote:
Here is the corrected patch, based on Gilles' comments.
I hope sending this as an attachment is ok. I am a former Mutt user,
now forced to use **tl**k, and I can never tell when this program
wraps the lines...
This patch is Ok for me. Philippe, could you merge it
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi Philippe,
here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64
under different gcc compilers:
unsigned long x = 0;
int n = 32;
x |= 1 n;
The last instruction translates to:
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 21:59 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Richard Cochran wrote:
Here is the corrected patch, based on Gilles' comments.
I hope sending this as an attachment is ok. I am a former Mutt user,
now forced to use **tl**k, and I can never tell when this program
Philippe Gerum wrote:
- the posix registry
Is it enough to replace 1 (fd % BITS_PER_LONG)
with 1L (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ?
--
Gilles Chanteperdrix.
___
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
- the posix registry
Is it enough to replace 1 (fd % BITS_PER_LONG)
with 1L (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ?
Yes, of course!
Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi Philippe,
here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64
under different gcc compilers:
unsigned long x = 0;
int n = 32;
x |= 1 n;
The last instruction
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
- the posix registry
Is it enough to replace 1 (fd % BITS_PER_LONG)
with 1L (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ?
Yes, of course!
But ffs on x86_64 takes an int as argument, not a long. So, my best
option is to
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
- the posix registry
Is it enough to replace 1 (fd % BITS_PER_LONG)
with 1L (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ?
Yes, of course!
But ffs on x86_64 takes an int as
Stelian Pop wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch adds an option to make Xenomai userspace issue EABI
syscalls. This is needed to make Xenomai work with kernels compiled with
CONFIG_EABI.
Note that due to a change in syscall handling when the EABI layer was
added in the kernel, this
13 matches
Mail list logo
