Re: [Xenomai-core] rtdm timers

2009-03-10 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Steven Seeger wrote: > Gilles believes he's on the track of our FPU issue when using kernel > threads. Would using an RTDM timer to accomplish our need have the > same issue? We would not use the FPU in the timer of course, because > it is not allowed. > > I just don't want to spend the time

[Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Correct error handling in rtcan_ixxat_pci.c if card has wrong sub_sys_id

2009-03-10 Thread Sebastian Smolorz
Hi, the subject says it all. The patch is only compile-tested. -- Sebastian Index: ksrc/drivers/can/sja1000/rtcan_ixxat_pci.c === --- ksrc/drivers/can/sja1000/rtcan_ixxat_pci.c (Revision 4679) +++ ksrc/drivers/can/sja1000/rtcan_ixx

Re: [Xenomai-core] Watchdog / immediate Linux signal delivery

2009-03-10 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> Philippe Gerum wrote: >>> Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Meanwhile I played with some light-weight approach to relax a thread >> that received a signal (according to do_sigwake_event). Worked, but on

Re: [Xenomai-core] rt_queue_create in RT task?

2009-03-10 Thread Andreas Glatz
Hi, On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 18:02 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: > Andreas Glatz wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 17:08 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote: > >> Andreas Glatz wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Calling rt_queue_create in a real-time task is supposed to fail > >>> according to the docum

Re: [Xenomai-core] Watchdog / immediate Linux signal delivery

2009-03-10 Thread Jan Kiszka
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: > Meanwhile I played with some light-weight approach to relax a thread > that received a signal (according to do_sigwake_event). Worked, but only > once due to a lim

[Xenomai-core] rtdm timers

2009-03-10 Thread Steven Seeger
Gilles believes he's on the track of our FPU issue when using kernel threads. Would using an RTDM timer to accomplish our need have the same issue? We would not use the FPU in the timer of course, because it is not allowed. I just don't want to spend the time converting things if it won't

[Xenomai-core] [PATCH v2] Suppress switch warnings while debugging

2009-03-10 Thread Jan Kiszka
Don't raise SIGXCPU while the process is being debugged. These mode changes are expected, and reporting them doesn't provide any helpful information to the application. Rather, it may raise error storms on the application side. Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka --- ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c |2 +- 1 fi

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Suppress switch warnings while debugging

2009-03-10 Thread Jan Kiszka
Philippe Gerum wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Philippe Gerum wrote: >>> Jan Kiszka wrote: Don't raise SIGXCPU while the process is being debugged. These mode changes are expected, and reporting them doesn't provide any helpful information to the application. Rather, it may raise error

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Suppress switch warnings while debugging

2009-03-10 Thread Philippe Gerum
Jan Kiszka wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Don't raise SIGXCPU while the process is being debugged. These mode >>> changes are expected, and reporting them doesn't provide any helpful >>> information to the application. Rather, it may raise error storms on the >>> applicatio

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Suppress switch warnings while debugging

2009-03-10 Thread Philippe Gerum
Jan Kiszka wrote: > Don't raise SIGXCPU while the process is being debugged. These mode > changes are expected, and reporting them doesn't provide any helpful > information to the application. Rather, it may raise error storms on the > application side. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka > --- > > k

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Suppress switch warnings while debugging

2009-03-10 Thread Jan Kiszka
Philippe Gerum wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Don't raise SIGXCPU while the process is being debugged. These mode >> changes are expected, and reporting them doesn't provide any helpful >> information to the application. Rather, it may raise error storms on the >> application side. >> >> Signed-off-

Re: [Xenomai-core] Watchdog / immediate Linux signal delivery

2009-03-10 Thread Philippe Gerum
Jan Kiszka wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> the watchdog is currently broken in trunk ("zombie [...] would not >>> die..."). In fact, it should al

[Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Suppress switch warnings while debugging

2009-03-10 Thread Jan Kiszka
Don't raise SIGXCPU while the process is being debugged. These mode changes are expected, and reporting them doesn't provide any helpful information to the application. Rather, it may raise error storms on the application side. Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka --- ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c |3 ++- 1 f