Philippe Gerum schrieb:
> I agree with the conclusion, not with the fix.

Thanks for reviewing the patch and sorry for the late answer.

> - the kernel side should rather test RTHAL_CPU_FREQ for consistency in
> the generic hal init code, and bail out with an error if 0 is detected,
> since there is no way for the nucleus to operate properly with such
> setting anyway.
> It turns out that no change have to be done in xnarch_init_timeconv()
> which should remain a void routine, but its argument - RTHAL_CPU_FREQ -
> should rather be tested as early as possible for consistency, directly
> from kernel space.

I'll post a new patch right now.


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to