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 Xenomaiemail@example.com https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core