On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 10:02 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> This is a stand-alone real-time library for printf services. It is
> embedded into the Xenomai user space part but actually doesn't depend
> on any Xenomai service, just using plain Linux POSIX.
>
> The librtprint API looks much like the print
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 14:58 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 14:06 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I think I found another unwanted side-effect of the no-cow changes:
> >>
> >> With the
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 14:06 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think I found another unwanted side-effect of the no-cow changes:
>
> With the I-pipe 1.7 patch series the test for missing mlockall no longer
> works. I just - once again - wrote a test program that was lacking this
> call, but
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 15:39 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 14:49 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >>Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 14:16 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
&g
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 14:49 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 14:16 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 2.6.19 didn't magically star
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 14:16 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >>2.6.19 didn't magically start to work as well. Instead I have a back
> >>trace now, see attachment.
> >>
> >>I included a full set of 16k points, but the thrilling things are around
> >
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:07 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 23:13 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > while testing 2.6.20 with RTnet, I got this kernel BUG during the slave
> &
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 23:13 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while testing 2.6.20 with RTnet, I got this kernel BUG during the slave
> startup procedure:
>
> <4>[ 137.799234] TDMA: calibrated master-to-slave packet delay: 34 us
> (min/max: 33/38 us)
> <4>[ 142.291455] BUG: at kernel/fork.c:9
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 22:44 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> RTnet revealed a problem of rtdm_task_sleep_until in trunk. When being
> called with a past date, it blocks forever because xnpod_suspend_thread
> considers such timeouts as infinite:
>
> http://www.rts.uni-hannover.de/xenoma
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 22:44 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> RTnet revealed a problem of rtdm_task_sleep_until in trunk. When being
> called with a past date, it blocks forever because xnpod_suspend_thread
> considers such timeouts as infinite:
>
> http://www.rts.uni-hannover.de/xenoma
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 10:01 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Index: include/asm-generic/wrappers.h
> ===
> --- include/asm-generic/wrappers.h(Revision 2167)
> +++ include/asm-generic/wrappers.h(Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -257,8 +257,6 @@ uns
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 10:21 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 09:38 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Hi Philippe,
> >>
> >> the "trivial" bugs are fixed already: see #2152 for the reason why
> >> rt_dev_
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 09:38 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> the "trivial" bugs are fixed already: see #2152 for the reason why
> rt_dev_read timeouts took too long (the timer mode was ignored by
> xnsynch_sleep_on),
Ok.
> and I also found a yet invisible bug in
> rtdm_toseq_init tha
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 07:47 +0100, Niklaus Giger wrote:
> Hi
>
> After spending a week skiing I discovered that I had to update the buildbot
> to
> use the 2.6.19 kernels everywhere. Seems to work.
>
> I also found that since February 2 I get the following error message
>
> g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_
e
> location pointed to by events_r."
Good. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 11:57 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 11:36 +0100, Markus Osterried wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > in pSOS skin function ev_receive() in file event.c I've found a bug.
> > When ev_receive() is called with EV_WAIT and an ev
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 11:36 +0100, Markus Osterried wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in pSOS skin function ev_receive() in file event.c I've found a bug.
> When ev_receive() is called with EV_WAIT and an event is received, the
> task is unblocked and everything is okay, then in this case the copy of the
> act
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 17:41 +0100, Markus Osterried wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> see below a code snippet for demonstration of the task priority problem.
> The expected behaviour is that the new task is running immediately after
> lowering root's priority.
> The log of the reached statements should t
On Sat, 2007-02-03 at 16:08 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> But first I need some build environment. A quick shot ended here when
> trying to configure a patch and prepared 2.6.19 kernel:
>
> # make ARCH=x86_64 CC="gcc -m64" oldconfig
> ...
> init/Kconfig:572: can't open file "arch/x86_64/xenomai/Kcon
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 13:56 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 18:39 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> just to save my current finding and maybe trigger some feedback:
> >>
> >
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 18:39 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just to save my current finding and maybe trigger some feedback:
>
> We just tried both 2.3.x-SVN and trunk with our "reference robot". While
> 2.3.x behaves fine, weird things happened with trunk /wrt some serial
> device. We saw rec
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 16:47 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> %>
>
> $ gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070106 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.1-21ubuntu7)
>
> The patch to fix the above issue is attached. Please take a look at
> that. Thanks!
>
Merged, thanks.
--
Philippe.
_
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:28 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>>In short, the following patch against 2.3.0 stock fixes the issue,
> >>>allowing threads to block while holding the scheduler lock.
> >>
> >>Ok, but this m
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:55 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 14:25 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >
> >>Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 18:16 +0100, Thomas Necker wrote:
Ok, no more distant rumblings about x86_64: a Xenomai port to this
architecture has officially started. A preliminary version of the I-pipe
for x86_64 is now available, which I'm going to use to port the Xenomai
core.
Thanks to Paul Corner for ironing the /proc support, and also for his
help in t
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 17:41 +0100, Markus Osterried wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> see below a code snippet for demonstration of the task priority problem.
> The expected behaviour is that the new task is running immediately after
> lowering root's priority.
> The log of the reached statements should t
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 14:25 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 18:16 +0100, Thomas Necker wrote:
> >
> >>So it clearly states that a non-preemtible task may block (and
> >>rescheduling occurs in
> >>this
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 14:25 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 18:16 +0100, Thomas Necker wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Philippe
> >>
> >>
> >>>>non-preemptive mode.
> >>>>With origina
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 18:16 +0100, Thomas Necker wrote:
> Hi Philippe
>
> > > non-preemptive mode.
> > > With original pSOS this was allowed and "non-preemptive" meant that a
> > > runnable task cannot be preempted by other tasks but can block itself.
> > > Why is this different in Xenomai and is
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 15:34 +0100, Markus Osterried wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I work together with Thomas Necker on a legacy pSOS project to get it
> ported to Xenomai.
> I have already ported a great amount of code and most of it works fine.
>
> But we have a pSOS task which (sometimes) works in non-p
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 14:32 +0100, Steven Scholz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we're doing the first steps with Xenomai and stumbled about some problems.
>
> On our AT91RM9200 (adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-arm-1.5-04,
> ipipe-2.6.14-at91-1.5-04.patch) a simple application (that just creates and
> destroys two threa
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 10:22 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > However, after looking at the ARM patch, I am not so sure
> > __ipipe_update_all_pinned_mm() is the way to go on all architectures.
> > The ARM I-pipe handles vmalloc and ioremap faults without causing
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 16:24 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in order to test the nocow patch, I wrote the attached test. Despite the
> fact that there is no longer any page fault (I have nucleus debugging
> on, so I would get a message if there was a fault), there is still an
> unwant
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 18:04 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Steven Scholz wrote:
> > Ok. Thanks.
> >
> > IIUC then 2.6.15 was before the introduction of the generic irq layer.
> >
> > So would these make it easier to port to a newer kernel? Or harder?
> >
> > Steven
>
> I have not delved i
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 16:18 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > This was run on x86, but need further testing before inclusion.
>
> Here is a new version, after testing. It appears to run fine. I tested
> forking in real-time applications both before and after call
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 00:34 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Thomas Wiedemann wrote:
> >> Another bug appeared for objects registered at the registry. When
> >> using xeno-native and xeno-rtdm, the order of removal seems to be
> >> important. I appended a small code sample to regist
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 16:36 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > in order to test the nocow patch, I wrote the attached test. Despite the
> > fact that there is no longer any page fault (I have nucleus debugging
> > on, so I would get a message if there
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 22:56 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Additionally, a Blackfin-specific tree can be browsed on-line here:
Please note the right URL for the Blackfin tree:
http://www.denx.de/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=ipipe-blackfin.git
--
Phili
Adeos/I-pipe git repositories are now available from DENX's site.
You will find the details for cloning them at the following URL:
http://www.denx.de/en/Software/GIT.
The I-pipe development tree tracking mainline Linux v2.6 is browsable
on-line from this URL:
http://source.denx.net/cgi-bin/gitweb
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 15:52 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> likely a regression of latest timer base patches: with periodic support
> enabled (haven't tested the off case yet), latency -t1/2 no longer work.
> I have no time to look at this, so I just dump my report here. :)
Ok, fixed
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 16:16 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 15:52 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Hi Philippe,
> >
> > likely a regression of latest timer base patches: with periodic support
> > enabled (haven't tested the off case yet), latency
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 15:52 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> likely a regression of latest timer base patches: with periodic support
> enabled (haven't tested the off case yet), latency -t1/2 no longer work.
> I have no time to look at this, so I just dump my report here. :)
>
Btw, it
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 15:52 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> likely a regression of latest timer base patches: with periodic support
> enabled (haven't tested the off case yet), latency -t1/2 no longer work.
> I have no time to look at this, so I just dump my report here. :)
>
> Jan
>
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 18:51 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> The menu ordering bugged me, specifically under the skins menu with all
> the new period options. There was some bug /wrt RTDM and some redundancy
> around the drivers menu. Any concerns about this patch?
No, please merge.
>
> Jan
>
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 15:32 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> What about a greedy version like this.
>
Applied, thanks.
--
Philippe.
___
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:28 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > ...
> > Not that I would be particularly fond of that, mm, thing, but this would
> > allow to fix the bogus x86+8254 setup relic, which is likely the only
> > one which would cause any
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 15:32 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:56 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>
> >>>Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>>
> >&
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 15:22 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:56 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:30 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>
> >
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:56 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:30 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >
> >>Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 11:20 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:30 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 11:20 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >>Hi all - and happy new year,
> >>
> >>I haven't looked at all the new code yet, only the commi
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 11:20 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi all - and happy new year,
>
> I haven't looked at all the new code yet, only the commit messages. I
> found something similar to my fast-forward-on-timer-overrun patch in
> #2010 and wondered if Gilles' original concerns on side effects for
Here is Xenomai v2.3. Five months work, 660 commits since v2.2 which
brought the following:
o RTDM-based CAN implementation.
o A lot of PowerPC work (major I-pipe upgrade to kernel 2.6.18).
o A lot of ARM work (I-pipe tracer, board support for the Samsung
S3C24xx series).
o A lot of Blackfin w
On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 21:58 +0100, Niklaus Giger wrote:
> Joyeux noël
Merci Niklaus, de même. Frõhliches Weihnachten und glũcklich neues Jahr!
(eh, sounds a bit like ARTE tv, isn't it?)
In other words, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.
--
Philippe.
_
On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 21:58 +0100, Niklaus Giger wrote:
> Am Samstag, 23. Dezember 2006 19:53 schrieb Philippe Gerum:
> > On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 19:31 +0100, Niklaus Giger wrote:
> > > Hi Philippe
> > >
> > > It seems that your revision 1978 or 1979 broke bu
On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 19:31 +0100, Niklaus Giger wrote:
> Hi Philippe
>
> It seems that your revision 1978 or 1979 broke building PSOS+ on ppc and
> PPC405.
Fixed, thanks. Btw, could you ask the buildbot to spam me gently each
time a commit wrecks the Xenomai boat? It would be easier for me than
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 15:42 +0100, Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 11:58 +0100, Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
> > > Hi Philippe and Gilles,
> > >
> > > the updated I-pipe patch for ARM which was checked-in yesterday i
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 11:58 +0100, Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
> Hi Philippe and Gilles,
>
> the updated I-pipe patch for ARM which was checked-in yesterday is not
> complete. Some files are missing e.g. entry-header.S or
> mach-integrator/core.c. The attached patch should be the correct replacemen
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 22:52 +0100, Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 17:04 +0100, Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
> > > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > > If you have anything more pending, please post soon, Gilles is
> > > >
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 17:04 +0100, Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> > If you have anything more pending, please post soon, Gilles is
> > collecting the ARM stuff for Xenomai 2.3.
>
> Attached are all patches that I posted in the last two months but didn't get
> into Ipipe CVS or
Here is the third candidate release for the v2.3.x branch. This is
intended to be last release candidate before final, so make sure to
have a look to the platform/architecture/feature you are interested
in.
Short log follows:
[nucleus]
* Decouple lock debugging from runtime stat
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 21:30 +0100, Niklaus Giger wrote:
> Am Freitag, 8. Dezember 2006 13:43 schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> > > Hi Niklaus,
> > >
> > > I just compiled my Linux 2.4 kernel for TQM860L with the latest revision
> > > of Xenomai and I cannot reproduce your problem
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:13 +0100, Thomas Necker wrote:
> > Here come some patches that add the following functions to the pSOS
> direct
> > syscall interface: tm_wkafter, tm_cancel, tm_evafter, tm_get, tm_set
The user-space part looks fine. There are a few issues in the syscall
wrappers, I'm
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:30 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> at the risk of overseeing some valid use case, I'm proposing to get rid
> of the hard rw-spinlocks in both Xenomai and I-pipe. Find attached
> patches to convert the only user, the IRQ shield, to a spinlock and
> remove the related wra
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 09:49 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> reading through the I-pipe patch I noticed that there are quite a few
> spin_lock->spin_lock_hw and similar conversions. Having the conversion
> mechanism of the -rt patch in mind, I wrote the attached I-pipe cleanup
> that applies a s
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:13 +0100, Thomas Necker wrote:
> > Here come some patches that add the following functions to the pSOS
> direct
> > syscall interface: tm_wkafter, tm_cancel, tm_evafter, tm_get, tm_set
>
> Yesterdays patches again in a different format that now (hopefully) can be
> ap
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:27 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:04 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 09:49 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:04 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 09:49 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> reading through the I-pipe patch I noticed that there are quite a few
> >> spin_lock->spin_lock_h
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 22:35 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 20:05 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 19:02 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > >> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > >>> Gilles Chan
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 10:24 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 01:16 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 11:21 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> The only part of the
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 01:16 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 11:21 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> The only part of the Xenomai user-space package not yet following
> >> standard installation rules is the testsuite. It get
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 20:05 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 19:02 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 19:02 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>Index: ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
> >>===
> >>--- ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c (révision 1930)
> >>+++ ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 00:03 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > following the recent discussion with Jan, here is a patch that aims at
> > allowing xnintr_lock/unlock actually do what they were supposed to do in
> > the first instance.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 10:59 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> what are the major differences between the ADEOS-IPIPE patch versions
> v1.5 and v1.6, apart from support for the new genirq layer. I realized,
> that the arch specific files ipipe-core.c and ipipe-root.c have been
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 00:03 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > Not for x86, ipipe_ack is always valid, and __ipipe_ack_irq() which
> > calls it is arch-dependent, so we are safe. Controlling the irq_chip
>
> lapic_chip?
>
This was missing from
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:05 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
[...]
> > The other important issue is that patching the call sites does not
> > preclude from analysing each and every PIC control routine, for ironing
> > them. When the number of PICs is small
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 17:44 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Index: include/native/mutex.h
> ===
> --- include/native/mutex.h(revision 1920)
> +++ include/native/mutex.h(working copy)
> @@ -121,10 +121,6 @@ int rt_mutex_release(RT_MU
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 18:37 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >> Benjamin Zores wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:17:07 +0100
> >>> Wolfgang Grandegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> I have now a preliminary patch for adeos-ipipe-2.6.1
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 10:01 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi all,
> I had a look at the related part in 2.6.19-i386-1.6-01 meanwhile, and
> there seems to be a concise pattern for the irq_chip changes:
>
> .ipipe_ack = (.mask_ack) ? .mask_ack : .ack;
> .ipipe_eoi = .eoi;
>
The complete pattern is:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 09:49 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> reading through the I-pipe patch I noticed that there are quite a few
> spin_lock->spin_lock_hw and similar conversions. Having the conversion
> mechanism of the -rt patch in mind, I wrote the attached I-pipe cleanup
> that applies a s
On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 18:59 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
[...Resuming the discussion on both interested lists...]
> Rough idea from my side on a potential organisation of the git trees:
>
> o A generic I-pipe core tree that primarily targets git head (i.e. 2.6)
> o One branch for git head, pulls b
Ok, I ended up finding such decoupling cleaner, given that we don't drag
the full debug overhead when activating /proc/xenomai/locks in SMP mode,
thanks to the reorganized debug options. Gilles, is this patch series ok
for you too, and particularly the POSIX changes?
--
Philippe.
On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 18:37 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 10:36 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 23:46 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>>>
On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 10:36 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 23:46 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 14:19 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anyway, there is an unreleased work-in-pr
On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 12:27 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> As the subject states. Compiles and runs fine - which implies that the
> whole 2.6.19-ipipe-1.6-00 patch works perfectly on my Thinkpad. Also
> right now while typing this mail. :)
>
Nice. Merged, thanks.
> Jan
>
> _
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 23:46 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 14:19 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> > Anyway, there is an unreleased work-in-progress patch for x86 over -rc6
> > by Philippe. I recently had the chance to test it and hack a bit on the
> > SM
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 23:47 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >
[...]
>
> > This said, I agree that adding a fake module directory to capture the
> > flags set by the main kernel Makefile is one step beyond ugliness; the
> > other approach being to only provide a 2.6 Makefile frag. As 2007
>
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 14:19 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Anyway, there is an unreleased work-in-progress patch for x86 over -rc6
> by Philippe. I recently had the chance to test it and hack a bit on the
> SMP IO-APIC part. It seems to work fine under UP, but SMP had some
> issues that are identified
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 18:44 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >
> > The Xenomai ABI has been kept compatible between versions
>
> I am afraid you are being optimistic: I for one made some changes in the
> posix skin that break the kernel/user
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 18:22 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> the new Xenomai example repository has been created. I don't want to
> >> repeat here what is explained already on the related wiki page, please
> >> have a look at
> >>
> >>
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 16:39 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we just had some fun here with incompatible native libraries. A program
> was built against some 2.2 release and was then started on a target with
> 2.3 libs installed. The result: undefined symbol rt_mutex_lock. The
> reason: this fun
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 19:12 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 00:05 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > To give it a start (and finally establish the infrastructure), I
> > copied/reformatted some existing examples and created a simple,
> &g
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 00:05 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
[...]
> To give it a start (and finally establish the infrastructure), I
> copied/reformatted some existing examples and created a simple,
> self-contained build system around them. The directory structure would
> be as I suggested:
>
> /examp
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 11:54 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >>Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>
> >>>Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>
> OK. So you are suggesting to read out the affinity mask from task_struct
> instead of passing it as an additional
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 11:43 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we had this topic a few times before, but it's getting more and more
> urgent now: How to establish a repository for Xenomai example code?
>
> I think we have basically two options:
>
> A) create /examples/, including /examples/rtdm
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 16:12 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
[...]
> OK, after reading a bit more in what I was hacking on, I'm starting to
> understand the CPU selection mechanisms of shadow threads. Here comes
> version 3 of the patch. Now it actually forces all threads to the
> desired CPUs.
>
> The
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 08:47 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as a by-product of some other hack, here comes the simple rebase of
> latest i386-1.5-02 I-pipe patch over 2.6.16.33. Might be interesting for
> those users who plan to follow Adrian Bunk's stable 2.6.16 series.
Now also available fro
Here is the second candidate release for the v2.3.x branch.
Short log follows:
[hal]
* ppc, arm: Make sure to return the last "current" value from
Xenomai context switch routines.
* x86: Handle issues raised by hidden uses of the FPU from
regular Linux dr
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 18:09 +0100, Niklaus Giger wrote:
> Hi Philippe
>
> Since your revision 1846 "Sanitize size-related heap macros" I cannot get
> link
> anymore the Linux kernel for PPC405 and vxworks. Others targets link without
> problems
>
> See
> http://ngiger.dyndns.org/buildbot/hcu3
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 20:10 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 19:41 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> I'm currently seeing two potential "misuses" of the common switch:
> >>
> >> - the posi
901 - 1000 of 2013 matches
Mail list logo
