Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC][patch] per-process data.

2006-05-08 Thread Dmitry Adamushko
On 08/05/06, Gilles Chanteperdrix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Likely I did not yet get the full picture: What prevents using another adeos per-task key for this? We would need a per-task key for every skin that needs a per-process data, but more importantly, we would need to

Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC] Micro-optimisations for the libs

2006-05-08 Thread Wolfgang Grandegger
Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Hi, [Daniel, I put you in the CC as you showed some interest in this topic.] as I indicated a some weeks ago, I had a closer look at the code the user space libs currently produce (on x86). The following considerations are certainly not worth noticeable

Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC] Micro-optimisations for the libs

2006-05-08 Thread Jan Kiszka
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Hi, [Daniel, I put you in the CC as you showed some interest in this topic.] as I indicated a some weeks ago, I had a closer look at the code the user space libs currently produce (on x86). The following considerations are

Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC][patch] per-process data.

2006-05-08 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Dmitry Adamushko wrote: On 08/05/06, Gilles Chanteperdrix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Likely I did not yet get the full picture: What prevents using another adeos per-task key for this? We would need a per-task key for every skin that needs a per-process

Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC][patch] per-process data.

2006-05-08 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: These patches are not ready for inclusion, they are not tested yet. The attached versions are tested. I still wonder if handling this in shadow.c is the right solution, or if there should be an xnppd_set call that could be called from within the skins event

Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC][patch] per-process data.

2006-05-08 Thread Jan Kiszka
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Likely I did not yet get the full picture: What prevents using another adeos per-task key for this? We would need a per-task key for every skin that needs a per-process data, Not necessarily, we could attach a chain of per-skin data

Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC][patch] per-process data.

2006-05-08 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: These patches are not ready for inclusion, they are not tested yet. The attached versions are tested. ...but the kernel patch is buggy. Here are the corrected versions. -- Gilles

Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC][patch] per-process data.

2006-05-08 Thread Philippe Gerum
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: These patches are not ready for inclusion, they are not tested yet. The attached versions are tested. I still wonder if handling this in shadow.c is the right solution, or if there should be an xnppd_set call that could be called from

Re: [Xenomai-core] /native/demos/satch hangs

2006-05-08 Thread Philippe Gerum
Daniel Simon wrote: Hello, I am trying xenomai on a Compaq N600c laptop, kernel 2.6.15 patched against xenomai-2.1.0 (config file attached). Most tests run succesfully (i.e., /usr/xenomai/testsuite/* and xenomai/ksrc/skins/posix/demos/accuracy*) However, (and after complaining about

Re: [Xenomai-core] [patch] prepare-kernel shouldnt alter files thru links

2006-05-08 Thread Philippe Gerum
Jim Cromie wrote: attached patch corrects a mistake in rev 985, which chmod'd a read-only file, even if it was a symlink from a kernel-tree cloned with lndir. This resulted in a bad original tree for use in building vanilla kernels. with patch, script renames the symlink, copies it to the

Re: [Xenomai-core] kconfig help questions

2006-05-08 Thread Philippe Gerum
Jim Cromie wrote: Going thru xenomai Kconfig again, some observations/uncertainties came up. I'll make a patch, given feedback. XENO_OPT_TIMING_PERIODIC Aperiodic mode provides for non-constant delays between timer ticks, the wording here (non-constant delays) left me momentarily wondering