Am 05.11.2010 00:25, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Am 04.11.2010 23:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> rework. Safer for now is likely to revert 56ff4329ff, keeping nucleus
>>>> debugging off.
>>> That is not enough.
>>
>> It is, I've reviewed the code today.
> 
> The fallouts I am talking about are:
> 47dac49c71e89b684203e854d1b0172ecacbc555

Not related.

> 38f2ca83a8e63cc94eaa911ff1c0940c884b5078

An optimization.

> 5e7cfa5c25672e4478a721eadbd6f6c5b4f88a2f

That fall out of that commit is fixed in my series.

> 
>>
>>> This commit was followed by several others to "fix
>>> the fix". You know how things are, someone proposes a fix, which fixes
>>> things for him, but it breaks in the other people configurations (one of
>>> the fallouts was a complete revamp of include/asm-arm/atomic.h for
>>> instance).
>>>
>>
>> I've pushed a series that reverts that commit, then fixes and cleans up
>> on top of it. Just pushed if you want to take a look. We can find some
>> alternative debugging mechanism independently (though I'm curious to see
>> it - it still makes no sense to me).
> 
> Since the fix is simply a modification to what we have currently. I
> would prefer if we did not remove it. In fact, I think it would be
> simpler if we started from what we currently have than reverting past
> patches.

Look at the series, it goes step by step to an IMHO clean state. We can
pull out the debugging check removal, though, if you prefer to work on
top of the existing code.

Jan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

Reply via email to