Philippe Gerum wrote:
>Paolo Mantegazza wrote:
>> Fillod Stephane wrote:
>>
>>> Dear RTAI/Fusion developers,
>>>
>>> RTAI/Fusion is great, especially when legacy code has to be ported
to
>>> it.
>>> In my case, the legacy code is RTAI/Classic (from the 24.1.x era),
>>> and unfortunately, none of the posix/psos+/uitron/vrtx/vxwork .. and
>>> refactored RTAI/Fusion skins have support for it. Rem: this reminds
me
>>> something about shoemakers ;-)
>>>
>>> Well it looks like it's time for "a migration kit from RTAI
'classic'
>>> to 'fusion'" as referred in this article[1].
Rem: I have to do that because of the lack of PowerPC support in
the RTAI/Classic (3.x) branch.
>>> [1] http://www.rtai.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=5
>>>
>>> My needs are pretty reasonable: they are a reduced set of rt_sem_*,
>>> rt_task_*, rtf_*(RT fifos) and rt_*_irq functions.
>>>
>>> Does anyone started already a RTAI/Classic skin for Fusion?
>>> If not, I can start it. What should be the name of the RTAI/Classic
>>> skin? Any advices before starting this skin?
Philippe, what would be the name of the skin(for directory and such)?
Any advice?
>>>
>>> I understand that I won't be able to use the RTAI/Classic and
>>> the Fusion native skins at the same time in kernel because of
>>> namespace clash.
>>>
>>
>> showroom/fusion, performances checkers.
Sorry Paolo, I don't understand what you wrote.
What is showroom/fusion ? I can't find such directory under CVS.
>
>Sorry, but showroom/fusion cannot work as fusion does. If it did, I
>would not have started this branch in the first place.
??
--
Stephane
