Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Philippe Gerum wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 08:42 +0200, M. Koehrer wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everybody, >>>> >>>> I want to know why the --enable-smp option for "configure" of Xenomai is >>>> used when there >>>> is already the corresponding option selected with the kernel configuration? >>> --enable-smp is only used when you want the user-space side to _require_ >>> SMP support to be present into the running kernel; i.e. for some (weird) >>> reason, your application really needs this. Xenomai libraries don't care >>> whether SMP support is enabled or not, they are not sensitive to that >>> issue (see the "weak" status of this option in README.INSTALL) >> >> Switchtest bases some compile-time decisions on CONFIG_SMP. Nitpicking, >> OK, but I wonder if this is required. Gilles? > > If you do not enable the smp option, switchtest will only use one cpu. > The reason why I made this is that, on some UP machine, (probably arm, > but I do no longer remember) sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN) did not work.
Welcome to embedded hell :-/. What was the effect precisely? Can we detect this during runtime? The point is I see people trying this test on SMP without providing the right switch to configure. Would be a pity IMHO. At this chance: I also noticed problems with our sched_setscheduler detection and bfin's uClibc. Compilations works, linking fails - they provide headers, but lack implementations. Patch suggestion will follow. And my pthread_spin_lock detection got nicely vaporised on bfin once again. I'm considering to switch back to the original configure-based detection. Enough of the moaning. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
