Jan Kiszka wrote: > Jorge Almeida wrote: > >>I'm using RTAI 3.4 and RTnet SVN >> >>The following error appears compiling Rtnet SVN >> >> CC [M] /home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack/iovec.o >> CC [M] /home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack/rtdev.o >> CC [M] /home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack/rtdev_mgr.o >>In file included from /home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack/include/rtskb.h:32, >> from /home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack/include/rtdev.h:38, >> from /home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack/rtdev_mgr.c:25: >>/home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack/include/rtnet.h:39: error: conflicting >>types for 'nanosecs_abs_t' >>/usr/realtime/include/rtdm/rtdm.h:79: error: previous declaration of >>'nanosecs_abs_t' was here >>/home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack/include/rtnet.h:40: error: redefinition of >>typedef 'nanosecs_rel_t' >>/usr/realtime/include/rtdm/rtdm.h:85: error: previous declaration of >>'nanosecs_rel_t' was here >>make[4]: *** [/home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack/rtdev_mgr.o] Error 1 >>make[3]: *** [_module_/home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack] Error 2 >>make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.16.20' >>make[2]: *** [all-local.ko] Error 2 >>make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack' >>make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 >>make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jorge/nfs_mount/rtnet/stack' >>make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 >> >> >>maybe something is duplicated. >> >>Its already defined in the RTDM and do not need to be defined in RTnet again. > > > Yes, but RTnet takes care to only define it on its own if RTDM doesn't > support it yet. And that information is derived from RTDM_API_VER. > > [Digging deeper...] > > Sigh. > > Paolo, could you explain why you copied RTDM code from Xenomai trunk > into a RTAI release right in the middle of our development cycle? We > haven't released any new Xenomai version yet that includes RTDM revision > 5, nor was that revision finalised in any other way. I simply pushed the > number forward to test the required detection code in drivers like RTnet. > > The effect is that RTAI 3.4 now contains broken code. Please fix this > for 3.4.1 or whatever the next release is. I'm offering you to freeze > the current feature-set to revision 5 and push the number forward for > the pending patches. But please avoid such chaos in the future. > > RTDM is gaining ground in industry, hardware vendor are providing > drivers against this API. If you want that also RTAI benefits from this, > you should really take care to keep the interfaces consistent. >
Well since I'm not worth being informed of what is going on directly with RTDM, I just diff now and then, test it with all my in house tests for a day or so and if it works I commit. In this case I saw changes, they worked, believed it was a good thing to upgrade and did it. It has worked so thus far. In this particular case I must admit I do not even know how to align the stuff. How and where is RTAI broken? What should I do? Paolo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ RTnet-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rtnet-users
