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=410e90d085d21dc913f8724efafe6a
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
> Date: Fri Mar 30
On 03/08/2012 03:30 PM, Ronny Meeus wrote:
# taskset 1 ./roundrobin.exe&
#0"000.557| [main] SCHED_RT priorities => [1 .. 99]
0"000.672| [main] SCHED_RT.99 reserved for IRQ emulation
0"000.708| [main] SCHED_RT.98 reserved for scheduler-lock emulation
Btw, the copperplate support yo
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 03/15/2012 08:49 PM, Ronny Meeus wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:30 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 test
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:30 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 th
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,
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 buil
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix
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: https://mail.gna.org/public
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, 20
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 wro
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 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 0
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, 20
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
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 16:19 +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
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
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:
>>>
>>> http://download.gna.org/xenomai
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,
>
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 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 sup
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 diffe
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 is
Yes, you are right, it is ok for 2.6.35-x86-trace.Thank you very much.
2011/9/5 Jan Kiszka
> On 2011-09-05 04:32, rainbow wrote:
> > hi,
> > I did a test for ftrace-xenomai on x86_64 test just now:
> > the environment is : OS: debian 6.0 gcc-4.1
> > I use origin/queues/2.6.37-x86 branch on git
>
On 2011-09-05 04:32, rainbow wrote:
> hi,
> I did a test for ftrace-xenomai on x86_64 test just now:
> the environment is : OS: debian 6.0 gcc-4.1
> I use origin/queues/2.6.37-x86 branch on git
> git://git.kiszka.org/ipipe-2.6for linux kernel and use branch
> origin/queues/ftrace on git git://
> gi
hi,
I did a test for ftrace-xenomai on x86_64 test just now:
the environment is : OS: debian 6.0 gcc-4.1
I use origin/queues/2.6.37-x86 branch on git
git://git.kiszka.org/ipipe-2.6for linux kernel and use branch
origin/queues/ftrace on git git://
git.xenomai.org/xenomai-jki.git
then I do as the fol
Thank you for so detailed answers!! I will test it.
2011/9/4 Jan Kiszka
> On 2011-09-04 15:16, rainbow wrote:
> > 2011/9/4 Jan Kiszka
> >
> >> 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 t
On 2011-09-04 15:16, rainbow wrote:
> 2011/9/4 Jan Kiszka
>
>> 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 th
2011/9/4 Jan Kiszka
> 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
> ba
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
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 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.
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
> On 2011-09-04 07:10, rainbow wrote:
> > Sorry to reply so late, I did a test about install ftrace on xeno
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 remote
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
origin/queues/2.6.35-x86
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
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Alexis Berlemont
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
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
On 08/30/2011 01:00 AM, Alexis Berlemont wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM, 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?
>>
> Yes. in my experimental bra
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM, 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?
>
Yes. in my experimental branch, I have a few things which are not that
experimental. I woul
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
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?
>>
>>
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
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. Howe
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] http://thread.gmane.org
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 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_PU
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
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_lis
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 2011-07-16 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 prim
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
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 d
On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 10:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> -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 op
-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
> a
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 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 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 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 Ki
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 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 07/12/2011 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 2011-07-12 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 07/12/2011 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:
>>> *
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.
>> */
>>
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 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
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 th
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 and
its target thread leaves an increasingly
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 cat
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 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 cras
On 2011-07-12 13:41, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 07/12/2011 01:29 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> I find all this complicated for a very small corner-case, so, I keep
>>> looking for a simpler solution. Let us try something else.
>>
>> It's rather the contrary: this solution is straightforward IMHO.
On 07/12/2011 01:29 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> I find all this complicated for a very small corner-case, so, I keep
>> looking for a simpler solution. Let us try something else.
>
> It's rather the contrary: this solution is straightforward IMHO.
>
>>
>> If the thread is woken up for whatever reaso
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 07/12/2011 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 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 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 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 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 2011-0
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
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:
>>
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 do_task
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 21:10, 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);
>>>
>>> xnloc
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);
>> +
>> +gksch
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 2011-06-29 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: 5597470d84584846875e8a35309e6302c76
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:
>>> http://git.xenomai.org/?p=xenomai
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=5597470d84584846875e8a35309e63
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
> Date: Tue Jun 28
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
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
1 - 100 of 739 matches
Mail list logo
