Philippe Gerum wrote:
 > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
 > > 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. 
 > > 
 > 
 > xnshadow_sys_bind()/unbind() would be the proper place to track a 
 > cumulated count. I'm not sure that this is going to be that useful now, 
 > but at some point in the future, maybe we could get a benefit from 
 > having a uniform way of talking to any interface using procfs, including 
 > to the core one.

Commit 1205 does what you suggested.

-- 


                                            Gilles Chanteperdrix.

_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to