On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 00:08 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 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.

True. It's going to be tagged as deprecated in 2.2.1, and switched off
by default.

> 
> > 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.
> 

Same views here.

> Jan
> 
-- 
Philippe.



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

Reply via email to