Hi Dmitry,
thanks for your response.
>
>
> Is it still true that when you place printf() right after the system()
> call, it works?
Yes, a printf() directly after the system() fixes the issue.
>
> What happens when you try different sleep intervals : 0, say 1000 ?
>
> Just to be sure where we are stuck. Insert exit() (or rt_task_delete(NULL))
> :
>
> (0) after system() --- if said above about printf() is not true;
> (1) after rt_task_sleep();
> (2) after printf("rt_task_sleep done...\n").
I have added a hacky trace mechanism in the kernel to see what's happening
(whenever the nmi_watchdog with the kernel oops appears).
What I can see is that rt_task_sleep(); is completely passed.
If I modify my application to add a second rt_task_sleep() directly after the
existing one, I see the both rt_task_sleep() calls are passed.
The freeze seems to happen with the printf() call after the rt_task_sleep.
Unfortunately, I do not know where I can trace here...
Best regards
Mathias
--
Mathias Koehrer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Viel oder wenig? Schnell oder langsam? Unbegrenzt surfen + telefonieren
ohne Zeit- und Volumenbegrenzung? DAS TOP ANGEBOT JETZT bei Arcor: günstig
und schnell mit DSL - das All-Inclusive-Paket für clevere Doppel-Sparer,
nur 44,85 inkl. DSL- und ISDN-Grundgebühr!
http://www.arcor.de/rd/emf-dsl-2
_______________________________________________
Xenomai-help mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
