Philippe Gerum wrote:
 > This said, the other option would be to move the call to 
 > xnshadow_mount() from the xnarch_init() to __xeno_sys_init() in a 
 > kernel-only section, just after xnpod_init_proc() has returned. There is 
 > nothing done in the arch-layer for any architecture that would prevent 
 > this. Btw, I'd say that "core" would be better than "xenomai" to name 
 > this internal interface.

Ok for renaming. But no thread is ever bound to this interface, so the
count is always 0. 


                                            Gilles Chanteperdrix.

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to