On 2012-04-02 16:35, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 04/02/2012 04:09 PM, GIT version control wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-upstream
Commit: 410e90d085d21dc913f8724efafe6ae75bd3c952
URL:
http://git.xenomai.org/?p=xenomai-jki.git;a=commit;h=410e90d085d21dc913f8724efafe6ae75bd3c952
On 04/02/2012 04:09 PM, GIT version control wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-upstream
Commit: 410e90d085d21dc913f8724efafe6ae75bd3c952
URL:
http://git.xenomai.org/?p=xenomai-jki.git;a=commit;h=410e90d085d21dc913f8724efafe6ae75bd3c952
Author: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com
On 03/08/2012 03:30 PM, Ronny Meeus wrote:
Hello
I'm are using the xenomai-forge pSOS skin (Mercury).
My application is running on a P4040 (Freescale PPC with 4 cores).
Some code snippets are put in this mail but the complete testcode is
also attached.
I have a test task that just consumes the
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Ronny Meeus ronny.me...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
I'm are using the xenomai-forge pSOS skin (Mercury).
My application is running on a P4040 (Freescale PPC with 4 cores).
Some code snippets are put in this mail but the complete testcode is
also attached.
I have
On 03/15/2012 08:49 PM, Ronny Meeus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Ronny Meeus ronny.me...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
I'm are using the xenomai-forge pSOS skin (Mercury).
My application is running on a P4040 (Freescale PPC with 4 cores).
Some code snippets are put in this mail but the
On 11/06/2011 11:11 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi,
thanks for Xenomai 2.6.0!
I'm attaching a patch that's helpful for the integration of Xenomai in
Debian (and FHS compliant systems in general), moving the architecture
dependent test programs from /usr/share to /usr/lib.
Applied, thanks.
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 20:34 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
here is the 4th release candidate for Xenomai 2.6.0:
http://download.gna.org/xenomai/testing/xenomai-2.6.0-rc4.tar.bz2
Novelties since -rc3 include:
- a fix for the long names issue on psos+
- a fix for the build issue
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix
gilles.chanteperd...@xenomai.org wrote:
On 09/05/2011 07:14 PM, Henri Roosen wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Unfortunately I didn't find the time to test this release yet. I'm
just wondering if there is a fix for this problem in the 2.6.0
release:
On 09/06/2011 11:15 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 20:19 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011 05:10 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at
On 09/04/2011 10:52 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
The first release candidate for the 2.6.0 version may be downloaded here:
http://download.gna.org/xenomai/testing/xenomai-2.6.0-rc1.tar.bz2
Hi,
currently 2.6.0-rc1 fails to build on 2.4 kernel, with errors related to
vfile support.
Hi,
On 09/06/2011 01:31 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
currently 2.6.0-rc1 fails to build on 2.4 kernel, with errors related to
vfile support. Do we really want to still support 2.4 kernels?
No worries here from the Debian (and derivatives) perspective.
bye,
Roland
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 13:31 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/04/2011 10:52 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
The first release candidate for the 2.6.0 version may be downloaded here:
http://download.gna.org/xenomai/testing/xenomai-2.6.0-rc1.tar.bz2
Hi,
currently
On 09/06/2011 03:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 13:31 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/04/2011 10:52 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
The first release candidate for the 2.6.0 version may be downloaded here:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:19 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011 03:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 13:31 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/04/2011 10:52 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
The first release candidate for the 2.6.0 version may be
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:19 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011 03:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 13:31 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/04/2011 10:52 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
The first release candidate for the 2.6.0 version may be
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:19 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011 03:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 13:31 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/04/2011 10:52 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:19 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011 03:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 13:31 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011 05:10 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:19 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011 03:27 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at
On 09/06/2011 08:19 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011 05:10 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:19 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 21:42 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011 08:19 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011 05:10 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue,
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 20:19 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 09/06/2011 05:10 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:53 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 16:19 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On
Hi Gilles,
Unfortunately I didn't find the time to test this release yet. I'm
just wondering if there is a fix for this problem in the 2.6.0
release: https://mail.gna.org/public/xenomai-core/2011-05/msg00028.html
We are using the auto-relax patches on top of 2.5.6 for a long time
now. We found
On 09/05/2011 07:14 PM, Henri Roosen wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Unfortunately I didn't find the time to test this release yet. I'm
just wondering if there is a fix for this problem in the 2.6.0
release: https://mail.gna.org/public/xenomai-core/2011-05/msg00028.html
This one is fixed, a bit
On 2011-09-04 07:10, rainbow wrote:
Sorry to reply so late, I did a test about install ftrace on xenomai. the
following is my procedure:
#git://git.xenomai.org/xenomai-jki.git queues/ftrace
#git://git.kiszka.org/ipipe-2.6 queues/2.6.35-x86-trace
#cd queues/ftrace
#git checkout -b
you mean I use remotes/origin/queues/2.6.37-x86 branch and use the ipipe
patch for 2.6.37 then install them on x86_64, the ftrace can work?I will
have a try, thank you!
2011/9/4 Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de
On 2011-09-04 07:10, rainbow wrote:
Sorry to reply so late, I did a test about install
On 2011-09-04 13:49, rainbow wrote:
you mean I use remotes/origin/queues/2.6.37-x86 branch and use the ipipe
patch for 2.6.37 then install them on x86_64, the ftrace can work?I will
have a try, thank you!
Use the 2.6.35-x86-trace, it already contains the ipipe patch, and build
it for x86-64.
Is the ipipe patch the same as patch like
adeos-ipipe-2.6.37.6-x86-2.9-02.patch, I know the latter is xenomai patch
and after I patch it, I can see Real-time sub-system --- Option. But If
I use 2.6.35-x86-trace which contains ,there is no such option.
Another problem is that there are so many
On 2011-09-04 14:21, rainbow wrote:
Is the ipipe patch the same as patch like
adeos-ipipe-2.6.37.6-x86-2.9-02.patch,
Except that the trace branch is for 2.6.35, yes. More precisely it is
now the same, I just pushed the latest version that includes two more
backported ipipe fixes.
I know the
2011/9/4 Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de
On 2011-09-04 14:21, rainbow wrote:
Is the ipipe patch the same as patch like
adeos-ipipe-2.6.37.6-x86-2.9-02.patch,
Except that the trace branch is for 2.6.35, yes. More precisely it is
now the same, I just pushed the latest version that includes two
On 2011-09-04 15:16, rainbow wrote:
2011/9/4 Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@web.de
On 2011-09-04 14:21, rainbow wrote:
Is the ipipe patch the same as patch like
adeos-ipipe-2.6.37.6-x86-2.9-02.patch,
Except that the trace branch is for 2.6.35, yes. More precisely it is
now the same, I just pushed
On 2011-09-03 04:52, rainbow wrote:
hi,all,I want to use ftrace in xenomai-2.5.6,but when I use git://
git.kiszka.org/ipipe.git queues/2.6.35-x86-trace to get the linux
kernel,there is no option about xenomai or ipipe . If I want to patch the
xenomai patch,there are some problem. How should I
Sorry to reply so late, I did a test about install ftrace on xenomai. the
following is my procedure:
#git://git.xenomai.org/xenomai-jki.git queues/ftrace
#git://git.kiszka.org/ipipe-2.6 queues/2.6.35-x86-trace
#cd queues/ftrace
#git checkout -b remotes/origin/queues/ftrace
On 08/30/2011 01:00 AM, Alexis Berlemont wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix
gilles.chanteperd...@xenomai.org wrote:
Hi,
I think it is about time we release Xenomai 2.6.0. Has anyone anything
pending (maybe Alex)? Should we release an -rc first?
Yes. in my
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Alexis Berlemont
alexis.berlem...@gmail.com wrote:
- a first version of Julien Delange's ni_660x driver
And also the one for the 670x board, no ?
___
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix
gilles.chanteperd...@xenomai.org wrote:
Hi,
I think it is about time we release Xenomai 2.6.0. Has anyone anything
pending (maybe Alex)? Should we release an -rc first?
Yes. in my experimental branch, I have a few things which are
On 2011-08-26 14:34, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
I think it is about time we release Xenomai 2.6.0. Has anyone anything
pending (maybe Alex)? Should we release an -rc first?
No patches ATM, but [1] is still an open bug - a bug that affects the ABI.
Jan
[1]
On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 14:34 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
I think it is about time we release Xenomai 2.6.0. Has anyone anything
pending (maybe Alex)? Should we release an -rc first?
Thanks in advance for your input.
Nothing pending for 2.6, I'm focusing on 3.x now. However
On 08/26/2011 03:05 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-08-26 14:34, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
I think it is about time we release Xenomai 2.6.0. Has anyone anything
pending (maybe Alex)? Should we release an -rc first?
No patches ATM, but [1] is still an open bug - a bug that affects the
On 2011-08-26 20:07, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 08/26/2011 03:05 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-08-26 14:34, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
I think it is about time we release Xenomai 2.6.0. Has anyone anything
pending (maybe Alex)? Should we release an -rc first?
No patches ATM, but
On 08/26/2011 08:19 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-08-26 20:07, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 08/26/2011 03:05 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-08-26 14:34, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
I think it is about time we release Xenomai 2.6.0. Has anyone anything
pending (maybe Alex)? Should we
On 08/09/2011 02:51 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
Hello,
I'm compiling xenomai-head on i386 debian/testing. I found that the file
src/skins/posix/wrappers.c is missing an include of signal.h for the
definition of pthread_kill().
Fixed, thanks.
--
On 07/31/2011 06:49 PM, GIT version control wrote:
+int rt_puts(const char *s)
+{
+ return print_to_buffer(stdout, 0, RT_PRINT_MODE_PUTS, s, NULL);
+}
gcc for ARM chokes here: it says that NULL can not be converted to a
va_list, however I try it.
--
On 2011-07-31 19:21, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/31/2011 06:49 PM, GIT version control wrote:
+int rt_puts(const char *s)
+{
+return print_to_buffer(stdout, 0, RT_PRINT_MODE_PUTS, s, NULL);
+}
gcc for ARM chokes here: it says that NULL can not be converted to a
va_list, however
On 07/31/2011 07:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-31 19:21, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/31/2011 06:49 PM, GIT version control wrote:
+int rt_puts(const char *s)
+{
+ return print_to_buffer(stdout, 0, RT_PRINT_MODE_PUTS, s, NULL);
+}
gcc for ARM chokes here: it says that NULL can
On 2011-07-31 19:46, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/31/2011 07:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-31 19:21, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/31/2011 06:49 PM, GIT version control wrote:
+int rt_puts(const char *s)
+{
+ return print_to_buffer(stdout, 0, RT_PRINT_MODE_PUTS, s, NULL);
+}
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-07-15 15:10, Jan Kiszka wrote:
But... right now it looks like we found our primary regression:
nucleus/shadow: shorten the uninterruptible path to secondary mode.
It opens a short windows during relax where the migrated task may be
active
On 2011-07-16 10:52, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 10:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-15 15:10, Jan Kiszka wrote:
But... right now it looks like we found our primary regression:
nucleus/shadow: shorten the uninterruptible path to secondary mode.
It opens a short windows
On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 11:15 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-16 10:52, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 10:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-15 15:10, Jan Kiszka wrote:
But... right now it looks like we found our primary regression:
nucleus/shadow: shorten the
On 2011-07-16 11:56, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 11:15 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-16 10:52, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 10:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-15 15:10, Jan Kiszka wrote:
But... right now it looks like we found our primary
On 07/14/2011 10:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-13 21:12, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/13/2011 09:04 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-13 20:39, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:38, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:34
On 2011-07-15 14:30, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/14/2011 10:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-13 21:12, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/13/2011 09:04 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-13 20:39, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12
On 2011-07-13 21:12, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/13/2011 09:04 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-13 20:39, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:38, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:34 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12
On 07/12/2011 07:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:38, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:34 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:31, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
xnlock_put_irqrestore(nklock, s);
On 2011-07-13 20:39, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:38, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:34 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:31, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 07/13/2011 09:04 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-13 20:39, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:38, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:34 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:31, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 02:57
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 20:39 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:38, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:34 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:31, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:09, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:02, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:59 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 21:51, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:16
On 2011-07-12 08:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:09, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:02, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:59 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11
On 07/12/2011 09:22 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 08:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:09, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:02, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:59
On 07/12/2011 09:22 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 08:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:09, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:02, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:59
On 2011-07-12 12:59, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 09:22 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 08:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:09, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11
On 07/12/2011 01:00 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 12:59, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 09:22 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 08:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:09, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:06
On 2011-07-12 13:04, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:00 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 12:59, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 09:22 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 08:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:12 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11
On 07/12/2011 01:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 13:04, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:00 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 12:59, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 09:22 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 08:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:12
On 2011-07-12 13:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 13:04, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:00 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 12:59, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 09:22 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12
On 07/12/2011 01:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 13:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 13:04, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:00 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 12:59, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 09:22
On 2011-07-12 13:26, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 13:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 13:04, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:00 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12
On 2011-07-12 13:56, Jan Kiszka wrote:
However, this parallel unsynchronized execution of the gatekeeper and
its target thread leaves an increasingly bad feeling on my side. Did we
really catch all corner cases now? I wouldn't guarantee that yet.
Specifically as I still have an obscure crash
On 07/12/2011 01:58 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 13:56, Jan Kiszka wrote:
However, this parallel unsynchronized execution of the gatekeeper and
its target thread leaves an increasingly bad feeling on my side. Did we
really catch all corner cases now? I wouldn't guarantee that yet.
On 2011-07-12 14:06, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:58 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 13:56, Jan Kiszka wrote:
However, this parallel unsynchronized execution of the gatekeeper and
its target thread leaves an increasingly bad feeling on my side. Did we
really catch all
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 14:57 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 14:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 14:06, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:58 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 13:56, Jan Kiszka wrote:
However, this parallel unsynchronized execution of the gatekeeper
On 2011-07-12 17:48, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 14:57 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 14:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 14:06, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 01:58 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 13:56, Jan Kiszka wrote:
However, this parallel
On 07/12/2011 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
xnlock_put_irqrestore(nklock, s);
xnpod_schedule();
}
@@ -1036,6 +1043,7 @@ redo:
* to process this signal anyway.
*/
if (rthal_current_domain == rthal_root_domain) {
+
On 2011-07-12 19:31, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
xnlock_put_irqrestore(nklock, s);
xnpod_schedule();
}
@@ -1036,6 +1043,7 @@ redo:
* to process this signal anyway.
*/
if
On 07/12/2011 07:34 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:31, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
xnlock_put_irqrestore(nklock, s);
xnpod_schedule();
}
@@ -1036,6 +1043,7 @@ redo:
* to process this
On 2011-07-12 19:38, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:34 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-12 19:31, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/12/2011 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
xnlock_put_irqrestore(nklock, s);
xnpod_schedule();
}
@@
On 07/08/2011 06:29 PM, GIT version control wrote:
@@ -2528,6 +2534,22 @@ static inline void do_taskexit_event(struct
task_struct *p)
magic = xnthread_get_magic(thread);
xnlock_get_irqsave(nklock, s);
+
+ gksched = thread-gksched;
+ if (gksched) {
+
On 2011-07-11 20:53, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/08/2011 06:29 PM, GIT version control wrote:
@@ -2528,6 +2534,22 @@ static inline void do_taskexit_event(struct
task_struct *p)
magic = xnthread_get_magic(thread);
xnlock_get_irqsave(nklock, s);
+
+gksched =
On 2011-07-11 21:10, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 20:53, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/08/2011 06:29 PM, GIT version control wrote:
@@ -2528,6 +2534,22 @@ static inline void do_taskexit_event(struct
task_struct *p)
magic = xnthread_get_magic(thread);
On 07/11/2011 09:16 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 21:10, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 20:53, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/08/2011 06:29 PM, GIT version control wrote:
@@ -2528,6 +2534,22 @@ static inline void do_taskexit_event(struct
task_struct *p)
magic =
On 2011-07-11 21:51, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:16 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 21:10, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 20:53, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/08/2011 06:29 PM, GIT version control wrote:
@@ -2528,6 +2534,22 @@ static inline void
On 07/11/2011 09:59 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 21:51, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:16 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 21:10, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 20:53, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/08/2011 06:29 PM, GIT version control wrote:
@@ -2528,6 +2534,22
On 2011-07-11 22:02, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:59 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 21:51, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:16 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 21:10, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 20:53, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/08/2011 06:29
On 07/11/2011 10:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:02, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:59 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 21:51, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:16 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 21:10, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 20:53, Gilles
On 2011-07-11 22:09, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 10:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 22:02, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:59 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11 21:51, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 07/11/2011 09:16 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-07-11
On 2011-06-28 23:29, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/28/2011 11:01 PM, GIT version control wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-upstream
Commit: 5597470d84584846875e8a35309e6302c768addf
URL:
http://git.xenomai.org/?p=xenomai-jki.git;a=commit;h=5597470d84584846875e8a35309e6302c768addf
On 06/29/2011 09:06 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-28 23:29, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/28/2011 11:01 PM, GIT version control wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-upstream
Commit: 5597470d84584846875e8a35309e6302c768addf
URL:
On 2011-06-29 09:25, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/29/2011 09:06 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-28 23:29, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/28/2011 11:01 PM, GIT version control wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-upstream
Commit: 5597470d84584846875e8a35309e6302c768addf
URL:
On 06/28/2011 11:01 PM, GIT version control wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-upstream
Commit: 5597470d84584846875e8a35309e6302c768addf
URL:
http://git.xenomai.org/?p=xenomai-jki.git;a=commit;h=5597470d84584846875e8a35309e6302c768addf
Author: Jan Kiszka jan.kis...@siemens.com
On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole branch, but took the liberty to change it a bit
(replacing the commit concerning unlocked context switches with comments
changes only, and changing the commit about xntbase_tick).
What makes splmax() redundant for the unlocked
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole branch, but took the liberty to change it a bit
(replacing the commit concerning unlocked context switches with comments
changes only, and changing the commit about xntbase_tick).
On 2011-06-20 19:33, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole branch, but took the liberty to change it a bit
(replacing the commit concerning unlocked context switches with comments
changes only,
On 06/20/2011 09:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 19:33, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole branch, but took the liberty to change it a bit
(replacing the commit concerning unlocked
On 2011-06-20 21:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 09:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 19:33, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole branch, but took the liberty to change it a
On 06/20/2011 09:41 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 21:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 09:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 19:33, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19 17:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Merged your whole
On 2011-06-20 21:51, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 09:41 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 21:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 09:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-20 19:33, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-19
On 06/20/2011 10:41 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
xnarch_switch_to is the central entry point for everyone. It may decide
to branch to switch_to or __switch_to, or it simply handles all on its
own - that's depending on the arch.
No, the Linux kernel does not know anything about xnarch_switch_to, so
On 2011-06-20 22:52, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/20/2011 10:41 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
xnarch_switch_to is the central entry point for everyone. It may decide
to branch to switch_to or __switch_to, or it simply handles all on its
own - that's depending on the arch.
No, the Linux kernel
On 06/18/2011 03:58 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-18 15:12, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/18/2011 03:07 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-18 14:56, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/18/2011 02:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-18 14:09, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/18/2011 12:21
On 2011-06-17 20:55, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/17/2011 07:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-17 18:53, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/17/2011 04:38 PM, GIT version control wrote:
Module: xenomai-jki
Branch: for-upstream
Commit: 7203b1a66ca0825d5bcda1c3abab9ca048177914
URL:
1 - 100 of 574 matches
Mail list logo
