Philippe Gerum wrote: >Fillod Stephane wrote: >> Attached is an obvious patch (to me). Part of it is across I-Pipe. >> Is there a reason why the counter was declared signed? >> > >Well, because the number of faults was not expected to increase >indefinitely... Is it the PF count we are talking about, on a mpc85xx?
Indeed. It's a MPC8541E. $ cat /proc/xenomai/faults TRAP CPU0 0: 4 (Data or instruction access) 1: 0 (Alignment) 2: 0 (Altivec unavailable) 3: 0 (Program check exception) 4: 0 (Machine check exception) 5: 0 (Unknown) 6: 0 (Instruction breakpoint) 7: 0 (Run mode exception) 8: 0 (Single-step exception) 9: 0 (Non-recoverable exception) 10: 0 (Software emulation) 11: 0 (Debug) 12: 0 (SPE) 13: 0 (Altivec assist) 14: 3221526824 (Cache-locking exception) 15: 0 (Kernel FP unavailable) Any clue? -- Stephane PS: Happy new year to whoever read this message :-) _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
