On 13/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> On 11/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:>>> And as an additional option,>>> it could be interesting to print out to the log if not all "counter"
>> values>>> then min,max,average (the sam
On 13/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> On 11/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:>>> And as an additional option,>>> it could be interesting to print out to the log if not all "counter"
>> values>>> then min,max,average (the sam
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On 11/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>>> And as an additional option,
>>> it could be interesting to print out to the log if not all "counter"
>> values
>>> then min,max,average (the same like for the latency :) per second or per
>>
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On 11/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>>> And as an additional option,
>>> it could be interesting to print out to the log if not all "counter"
>> values
>>> then min,max,average (the same like for the latency :) per second or per
>>
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>>> Then I stumbled over the xnintr structure. Why do you keep a copy of the
device name?
A "const char *" should be enough, we just have to demand
that it will remain valid as long as the xnintr structure itself (i.e.
during the IRQ being attached). Save
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>>> Then I stumbled over the xnintr structure. Why do you keep a copy of the
device name?
A "const char *" should be enough, we just have to demand
that it will remain valid as long as the xnintr structure itself (i.e.
during the IRQ being attached). Save
On 11/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> And as an additional option,> it could be interesting to print out to the log if not all "counter" values> then min,max,average (the same like for the latency :) per second or per
> 1000 interrupts; so to see whether tweaki
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
>> some news from the testing front: It works fairly well - and it doesn't
>> crash =:).
>
> Good news indeed :)
>
>> We set up a quite demanding test scenario which consists of
>> two Sick Laser scanners feeding two UART ports at 500 Kbit/s. The UARTs
>> are
Hi Jan,
> some news from the testing front: It works fairly well - and it doesn't
> crash =:).
Good news indeed :)
> We set up a quite demanding test scenario which consists of
> two Sick Laser scanners feeding two UART ports at 500 Kbit/s. The UARTs
> are on a special PC104 card, sharing the
On 11/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> And as an additional option,> it could be interesting to print out to the log if not all "counter" values> then min,max,average (the same like for the latency :) per second or per
> 1000 interrupts; so to see whether tweaki
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
>> some news from the testing front: It works fairly well - and it doesn't
>> crash =:).
>
> Good news indeed :)
>
>> We set up a quite demanding test scenario which consists of
>> two Sick Laser scanners feeding two UART ports at 500 Kbit/s. The UARTs
>> are
Hi Jan,
> some news from the testing front: It works fairly well - and it doesn't
> crash =:).
Good news indeed :)
> We set up a quite demanding test scenario which consists of
> two Sick Laser scanners feeding two UART ports at 500 Kbit/s. The UARTs
> are on a special PC104 card, sharing the
12 matches
Mail list logo
