Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi Gilles,
I'm currently facing a nasty effect with switchtest over latest git head
(only tested this so far): running it inside my test VM (ie. with
Jan Kiszka wrote:
I think the trick against /this/ is preempt_disable/enable in
kernel_fpu/begin/end. But that won't work for Xenomai, of course.
Well, that does not prevent an IRQ or a page fault from computing a RAID
cheksum...
--
Gilles.
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
I think the trick against /this/ is preempt_disable/enable in
kernel_fpu/begin/end. But that won't work for Xenomai, of course.
Well, that does not prevent an IRQ or a page fault from computing a RAID
cheksum...
If this is
Martin Shepherd wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Jan Kiszka wrote:
...
Martin, could you check if this helps you, too?
It doesn't appear to help. To check, first I turned on the HPET and PM
timer options, and recompiled the kernel without your patch, to verify
that this reproduced the problem.
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:20 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 18:10 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 17:28 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 15:18 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:20 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 18:10 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 17:28 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 15:18 +0200, Jan
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 13:00 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:20 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 18:10 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 17:28 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Martin Shepherd wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Jan Kiszka wrote:
...
Martin, could you check if this helps you, too?
It doesn't appear to help. To check, first I turned on the HPET and PM
timer options, and recompiled the kernel without your patch, to verify
that this
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Martin Shepherd wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Jan Kiszka wrote:
...
Martin, could you check if this helps you, too?
It doesn't appear to help. To check, first I turned on the HPET and PM
timer options, and recompiled the kernel without your patch,
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:20 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 18:10 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 17:28 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 15:18 +0200, Jan
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 14:52 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:20 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 18:10 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 17:28 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 14:52 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:20 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 18:10 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 17:28 +0200,
Hello all,
I would like to know if it's possible to simply separate Xenomai
(nucleus) from Linux and adeos ? My goal is to have a simple RTOS based
on Xenomai (only native skin in kernel space).
I have done a quick look at the source and it's seems ok to remove adeos
by editing hal. About linux,
13 matches
Mail list logo
