Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 01.11.2010 17:55, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 28.10.2010 11:34, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 28.10.2010 09:34, Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Hi, I'm trying to use

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Am 03.11.2010 12:44, Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 01.11.2010 17:55, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 28.10.2010 11:34, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 28.10.2010 09:34, Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Am 03.11.2010 12:50, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 12:44, Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 01.11.2010 17:55, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 28.10.2010 11:34, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 28.10.2010 09:34, Anders Blomdell

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

On 2010-11-03 12.55, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 12:50, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 12:44, Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 01.11.2010 17:55, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 28.10.2010 11:34, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Am 03.11.2010 13:07, Anders Blomdell wrote: On 2010-11-03 12.55, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 12:50, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 12:44, Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 01.11.2010 17:55, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 28.10.2010 11:34,

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Jan Kiszka wrote: additional barrier. Can you check this? diff --git a/include/nucleus/sched.h b/include/nucleus/sched.h index df56417..66b52ad 100644 --- a/include/nucleus/sched.h +++ b/include/nucleus/sched.h @@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ static inline int xnsched_self_resched_p(struct xnsched *sched)

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: additional barrier. Can you check this? diff --git a/include/nucleus/sched.h b/include/nucleus/sched.h index df56417..66b52ad 100644 --- a/include/nucleus/sched.h +++ b/include/nucleus/sched.h @@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ static inline int

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: additional barrier. Can you check this? diff --git a/include/nucleus/sched.h b/include/nucleus/sched.h index df56417..66b52ad 100644 --- a/include/nucleus/sched.h +++ b/include/nucleus/sched.h @@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ static inline

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Am 03.11.2010 17:46, Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: additional barrier. Can you check this? diff --git a/include/nucleus/sched.h b/include/nucleus/sched.h index df56417..66b52ad 100644 --- a/include/nucleus/sched.h +++

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 17:46, Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: additional barrier. Can you check this? diff --git a/include/nucleus/sched.h b/include/nucleus/sched.h index df56417..66b52ad 100644 --- a/include/nucleus/sched.h

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 20:38 +0100, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 17:46, Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: additional barrier. Can you check this? diff --git a/include/nucleus/sched.h

[Xenomai-core] Is anybody using the pSOS skin in userland?

Hello we are investigating to usage of the pSOS+ skin to port a large legacy pSOS application to Linux. The application model consist of several processes in which the application lives. All processes will make use of the pSOS library. After playing around with the library for some time we have

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Am 03.11.2010 21:41, Philippe Gerum wrote: On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 20:38 +0100, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 17:46, Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: additional barrier. Can you check this? diff --git

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Am 03.11.2010 23:03, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 21:41, Philippe Gerum wrote: On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 20:38 +0100, Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 17:46, Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: additional barrier. Can

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Am 03.11.2010 23:11, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:03, Jan Kiszka wrote: But we not not always use atomic ops for manipulating status bits (but we do in other cases where this is no need - different story). This may fix the race: Err, nonsense. As we manipulate xnsched::status also

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:11, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:03, Jan Kiszka wrote: But we not not always use atomic ops for manipulating status bits (but we do in other cases where this is no need - different story). This may fix the race: Err, nonsense. As we manipulate

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Am 04.11.2010 00:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:11, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:03, Jan Kiszka wrote: But we not not always use atomic ops for manipulating status bits (but we do in other cases where this is no need - different story). This may fix

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:11, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:03, Jan Kiszka wrote: But we not not always use atomic ops for manipulating status bits (but we do in other cases where this is no need - different

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Am 04.11.2010 00:18, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:11, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:03, Jan Kiszka wrote: But we not not always use atomic ops for manipulating status bits (but we do in

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:18, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:11, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:03, Jan Kiszka wrote: But we not not always use atomic ops for manipulating status

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Am 04.11.2010 00:44, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:18, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:11, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:03, Jan Kiszka wrote: But we not

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:44, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:18, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:11, Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:03, Jan Kiszka

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Am 04.11.2010 00:56, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:44, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:18, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 03.11.2010 23:11,

Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:56, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:44, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:18, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am 04.11.2010 00:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Am