Philippe Gerum wrote:
> ...
> To sum up, the UVM support is hard to explain to potential users, adds a
> fair amount of confusion when compared to using the direct syscall
> interfaces from user-space, and can't evolve up to the point where I
> could be happy with them.

Thanks for clarifying. I never looked that deep into the UVM (except
when I broke something with an arch patch). I just wrote that mail while
waiting on the user-space part for being built ;). The UVM lib is
default=y, maybe something we should change soon as well.

> PS: regarding the RTAI issue, most projects migrating from there to Xeno
> are AFAIK, converting their applications to use the native skin
> directly, or even the POSIX one. Fact is that RTAI is more than 300
> calls, if you take into account all the interface variants. Given the
> nature of what is actually a set of APIs, more than a single one, the
> sandboxed environment the UVM brings does not fit the RTAI interfaces at
> all. People really interested in having a 100% compatible RTAI skin over
> Xenomai that accurately emulates LXRT should definitely implement the
> direct syscall interface for it.

AFAIK no one insisted yet on user-space support for the RTAI skin. So
this seconds that porting actually takes place at the application level.
I guess it would take a rather large RTAI app so that writing a really
compatible skin becomes worth the effort.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to