Steven Scholz wrote:
Hi Gilles,
I now tested Gille's brand new adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-arm-1.6-01.patch. The
above problems disapeared. I even do see a Xenomai: POSIX: destroyed
thread now.
So is this a known bug of ipipe-1.5 vs ipipe-1.6?
Or does anyone remember a bug like that?
I do not think
Hi all,
I wrote:
On our AT91RM9200 (adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-arm-1.5-04,
ipipe-2.6.14-at91-1.5-04.patch) a simple application (that just creates and
destroys two threads)
rt_task_create(task_1,task_1,0,50,0);
rt_task_create(task_2,task_2,0,51,0);
...
Steven Scholz wrote:
Hi all,
I wrote:
On our AT91RM9200 (adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-arm-1.5-04,
ipipe-2.6.14-at91-1.5-04.patch) a simple application (that just creates and
destroys two threads)
rt_task_create(task_1,task_1,0,50,0);
rt_task_create(task_2,task_2,0,51,0);
...
Hi Gilles,
I now tested Gille's brand new adeos-ipipe-2.6.19-arm-1.6-01.patch. The
above problems disapeared. I even do see a Xenomai: POSIX: destroyed
thread now.
So is this a known bug of ipipe-1.5 vs ipipe-1.6?
Or does anyone remember a bug like that?
I do not think there is such a
Steven Scholz wrote:
We noticed that on the AT91RM9200 we don't see the
Xenomai: POSIX: destroyed thread c14a0320
message. Not even when running (and stopping) cyclictest. I suspect that
this is leading to our problems.
This message only appears if CONFIG_XENO_OPT_DEBUG_POSIX is enabled,
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 14:32 +0100, Steven Scholz wrote:
Hi all,
we're doing the first steps with Xenomai and stumbled about some problems.
On our AT91RM9200 (adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-arm-1.5-04,
ipipe-2.6.14-at91-1.5-04.patch) a simple application (that just creates and
destroys two threads)
Hi all,
we're doing the first steps with Xenomai and stumbled about some problems.
On our AT91RM9200 (adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-arm-1.5-04,
ipipe-2.6.14-at91-1.5-04.patch) a simple application (that just creates and
destroys two threads)
rt_task_create(task_1,task_1,0,50,0);