On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 11:45 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 11:33 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 11:09 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:08 +0100, Philipp
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 11:33 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 11:09 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:08 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:03 +0100, Jan Kisz
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 11:33 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 11:09 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:08 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:03 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Philipp
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> The arguably less ambitious following patch works for me on x86_32:
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/ipipe.c b/arch/x86/kernel/ipipe.c
>> index 4442d96..a7e1241 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/ipipe.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/ipipe.c
>> @@ -703,6
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 11:09 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:08 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:03 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On Fri,
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 11:09 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:08 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:03 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 18:41 +0100, Jan Kisz
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 11:09 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:08 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:03 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 18:41 +0100, Jan Kisz
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 11:09 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:08 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:03 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 18:41 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Gilles
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:08 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:03 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 18:41 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On Fri,
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:08 +0100, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:03 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 18:41 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > >> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > >>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 17:58
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:03 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 18:41 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 17:58 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > we are cur
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 18:41 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 17:58 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> we are currently trying to catch an ugly Linux pipeline state corruption
>
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 18:41 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 17:58 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> Hi guys,
> >>>
> >>> we are currently trying to catch an ugly Linux pipeline state corruption
> >>> on x86-64.
> >>>
> >>> Co
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 17:58 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> we are currently trying to catch an ugly Linux pipeline state corruption
>>> on x86-64.
>>>
>>> Conceptual question: If a Xenomai task causes a fault, we enter
>>> ipipe_trap_noti
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 17:58 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> we are currently trying to catch an ugly Linux pipeline state corruption
>> on x86-64.
>>
>> Conceptual question: If a Xenomai task causes a fault, we enter
>> ipipe_trap_notify over the primary domain a
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 17:58 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> we are currently trying to catch an ugly Linux pipeline state corruption
>>> on x86-64.
>>>
>>> Conceptual question: If a Xenomai task causes a fault, we enter
>>> ipipe
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> we are currently trying to catch an ugly Linux pipeline state corruption
> on x86-64.
>
> Conceptual question: If a Xenomai task causes a fault, we enter
> ipipe_trap_notify over the primary domain and leave it over the root
> domain, right? Now, if the root domai
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 17:58 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> we are currently trying to catch an ugly Linux pipeline state corruption
>> on x86-64.
>>
>> Conceptual question: If a Xenomai task causes a fault, we enter
>> ipipe_trap_notify over the primary domain a
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 17:58 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> we are currently trying to catch an ugly Linux pipeline state corruption
> on x86-64.
>
> Conceptual question: If a Xenomai task causes a fault, we enter
> ipipe_trap_notify over the primary domain and leave it over the root
> d
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> we are currently trying to catch an ugly Linux pipeline state corruption
> on x86-64.
>
> Conceptual question: If a Xenomai task causes a fault, we enter
> ipipe_trap_notify over the primary domain and leave it over the root
> domain, right? Now, if the root domai
20 matches
Mail list logo