On 2014-02-27 14:28, Jennifer Averett wrote:
+int pthread_setaffinity_np(
+ pthread_t id,
+ size_t cpusetsize,
+ const cpu_set_t *cpuset)
+{
+ Objects_Locationslocation;
+ POSIX_API_Control *api;
+ Thread_Control *the_thread;
+ int
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Hesham Moustafa
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> >>
> >> Hesham,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Hesham Moustafa
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Long term
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Alan Cudmore wrote:
> I checked around at work and there is some interest in using the OpenRISC
> architecture, but no definite plans.
> Another idea is to advance the Microblaze port.
>
> Great. I can work on either, but I preferred OpenRISC because an RTEMS
port,
Hello,
I would like to announce the RTEMS Project is moving its net
infrastructure from OAR Corporation to new server hardware located in
the Oregon State University's Open Source Lab (OSUOSL). This is an
exciting stage for RTEMS and I have commented to Joel and Mark at OAR
Corporation that R
Alan,
That gives enough justification for either ports as potential GSOC projects.
Thanks,
Gedare
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Alan Cudmore wrote:
> I checked around at work and there is some interest in using the OpenRISC
> architecture, but no definite plans.
> Another idea is to advance the
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Hesham Moustafa
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>> Hesham,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Hesham Moustafa
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Long term a port needs to be to a viable architecture from a "is it
>> >> alive"
>> >> vie
I checked around at work and there is some interest in using the OpenRISC
architecture, but no definite plans.
Another idea is to advance the Microblaze port.
Alan
On Mar 4, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Hesham Moustafa wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> Hesham,
>
>
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> Hesham,
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Hesham Moustafa
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Joel Sherrill >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 3, 2014 8:23 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hesham,
> >> >
> >> >
Thanks for the responses.
What about thread processor affinity?
http://www.rtems.org/wiki/index.php/SMP#Processor_Affinity
I have seen Sebastian's opinion about it at
http://www.rtems.org/pipermail/rtems-devel/2014-February/005552.html
but what is the current status?
What I understood is tha
2014-03-04 21:32 GMT+08:00 Gedare Bloom :
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:51 PM, zhang json wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Recently i have been study the RTEMS code and all related resource about
> > condition variables. At the meantime i am preparing a proposal for this
> GSOC
> > project. Although it
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:51 PM, zhang json wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Recently i have been study the RTEMS code and all related resource about
> condition variables. At the meantime i am preparing a proposal for this GSOC
> project. Although it is just a skeleton draft, i think it is better to throw
>
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Youren Shen wrote:
> Hi, everyone,
>
> These days I'm running the hello world example on POK, reading the source
> code of POK and the patch to RTEMS, knowing the work has been done before
> me. After that, I draft my proposal. Could you review it? However, as the
>
This function was only used in some tests and can be replaced with other
functions.
---
cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/threaddispatch.h | 20 --
cpukit/score/src/threaddispatchdisablelevel.c | 40 -
testsuites/rhealstone/rhilatency/ilatency.c |1 -
t
Hi Chris,
Yes using "enable SMP" sounds like a nice idea.
Actually beeing under time pressure I needed a solution which I could
get up and running quickly and easily. This is the major reason for the
linker command files solution.
I am sure the "enable SMP" solution also would be doable but it woul
14 matches
Mail list logo
