On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 16:00 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:45 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > > We don't care that much about changing the ABI between -rc1 and -rc2
> > > actually, so it mostly depends whether we want to backport the fix to
> > > 2.4 regarding the tsc->ns conversion, since we do not have any nodiv
> > > implementation for the ns->tsc one there yet.
> > But we have llmulshft, do we ? which means that we do have the problem
> > of approximate cpu frequency.
> So I guess your answer to the "should backport" question is yes, we
> should. Ok, so we do have to run xnarch_init_u32frac and friends from
> userland. I will try to find a better excuse for procrastinating then...
Thanx for the effort
Just for info, i tested adeos patch 22.214.171.124-x86-2.2-07 with Xenomai
2.4.7 with regards the timing (as described in the thread "adeos patch
126.96.36.199-x86-2.2-07 feedback" on the xenomai-help mailing list)
I compared those results with the ones i obtained from
adeos-ipipe-2.6.24-x86-2.0-07.patch with Xenomai 2.4.5.
My testing with Xenomai 2.5 rc1 was just to boot and see if the lockup
problem was still present. Would you would like me to do the latency
tests with Xenomai 2.5 rc1 ?
Xenomai-core mailing list