Much appreciates for the replies.
if you look at the following page:
http://home.gna.org/adeos/doc/api/globals.html
You can see some functions like adeos_alloc_irq() or adeos_alloc_ptdkey().
But if you patch the linux kernel with the adeos patch, these
functions do not exist.
On Wed, May 30,
This recently released patch appears to be broken with regard to patching
arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c.
The first section of the patch should be applied to around line 32 in
similar fashion to the patch for the other micros in the family. However, it
is being applied to an entirely different s
On 06/04/12 21:28, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/04/2012 09:26 PM, Marc Le Douarain wrote:
Hello,
I've some difficulties to run Xenomai with a little 'hello' example
(that create/start a task)
on a target 486 processor (without fpu).
I successfully compiled the Linux kernel 2.6.38.8 with
a
On 06/04/2012 09:26 PM, Marc Le Douarain wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've some difficulties to run Xenomai with a little 'hello' example
> (that create/start a task)
> on a target 486 processor (without fpu).
>
> I successfully compiled the Linux kernel 2.6.38.8 with
> adeos-ipipe-2.6.38.8-x86-2.11-02.
On 06/04/2012 09:26 PM, Marc Le Douarain wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've some difficulties to run Xenomai with a little 'hello' example
> (that create/start a task)
> on a target 486 processor (without fpu).
>
> I successfully compiled the Linux kernel 2.6.38.8 with
> adeos-ipipe-2.6.38.8-x86-2.11-02.
Hello,
I've some difficulties to run Xenomai with a little 'hello' example
(that create/start a task)
on a target 486 processor (without fpu).
I successfully compiled the Linux kernel 2.6.38.8 with
adeos-ipipe-2.6.38.8-x86-2.11-02.patch (Xenomai version is 2.5.6)
(modify file xenomai-2.5.6/in
On 06/04/2012 03:30 PM, abhri wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a doubt regarding host tick propagation. I understand that host
> tick will be relayed when XNHTICK bit is set and there is a domain
> migration to root. In case there is large delay to change domain from
> primary to secondary how is the host
On 06/04/2012 03:39 PM, Moses McKnight wrote:
Hi,
I am looking at trying to port the latest x86 ipipe patch to kernel
version 3.2.18, but before I get too far, has any work been done on that
or a kernel newer than 2.6.38.8? If so is it about to be released? I
don't want or have time to duplicate
Hi,
I am looking at trying to port the latest x86 ipipe patch to kernel
version 3.2.18, but before I get too far, has any work been done on that
or a kernel newer than 2.6.38.8? If so is it about to be released? I
don't want or have time to duplicate someone else's work.
Thanks,
Moses
___
Hi,
I have a doubt regarding host tick propagation. I understand that host
tick will be relayed when XNHTICK bit is set and there is a domain
migration to root. In case there is large delay to change domain from
primary to secondary how is the host tick corrected when relayed next.
Is there an
On 06/04/2012 01:16 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 08:05 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 06/01/2012 07:28 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-01 19:16, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
with the current tip of xenomai 2.6 branch, the "sigdebug" test testing
On 2012-06-04 13:16, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 08:05 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 06/01/2012 07:28 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-01 19:16, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
with the current tip of xenomai 2.6 branch, the "sigdebug" test testing
the
On 06/01/2012 08:05 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/01/2012 07:28 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-01 19:16, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
with the current tip of xenomai 2.6 branch, the "sigdebug" test testing
the "mayday" code ends up with a segfault on x86_32. I tried to have a
loo
On 06/04/2012 12:03 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/04/2012 11:53 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 06/04/2012 11:33 AM, Frederik Bayart wrote:
Dietmar, thanks for hint. Indeed, I noticed that the number of bytes
sent != bytes to send.
If I wrap the send in a while lus, the problem is solved.
On 06/04/2012 11:53 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 06/04/2012 11:33 AM, Frederik Bayart wrote:
>> Dietmar, thanks for hint. Indeed, I noticed that the number of bytes
>> sent != bytes to send.
>> If I wrap the send in a while lus, the problem is solved.
>>
>> Does anyone have a suggestion how to de
On 06/04/2012 11:33 AM, Frederik Bayart wrote:
Dietmar, thanks for hint. Indeed, I noticed that the number of bytes
sent != bytes to send.
If I wrap the send in a while lus, the problem is solved.
Does anyone have a suggestion how to detect the interrupting signal
(SIG_ALL doesn't exist)
Use
Dietmar, thanks for hint. Indeed, I noticed that the number of bytes
sent != bytes to send.
If I wrap the send in a while lus, the problem is solved.
Does anyone have a suggestion how to detect the interrupting signal
(SIG_ALL doesn't exist)
Frederik
On 31 May 2012 11:54, wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> F
17 matches
Mail list logo
