On 2014-05-15 20:40, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 04:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi Gilles,
>>
>> On 2014-05-10 18:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Hi Jan,
>>>
>>> I have pushed a new version which addresses your comments in the
>>> "for-forge-rtdm-rework" branch.
>>>
>>> You can
On 05/14/2014 04:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Gilles,
>
> On 2014-05-10 18:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> I have pushed a new version which addresses your comments in the
>> "for-forge-rtdm-rework" branch.
>>
>> You can ignore the "whitespace cleanup" commit, it is just there to
On 05/14/2014 04:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi Gilles,
On 2014-05-10 18:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi Jan,
I have pushed a new version which addresses your comments in the
"for-forge-rtdm-rework" branch.
You can ignore the "whitespace cleanup" commit, it is just there to
allow me to simply
Hi Gilles,
On 2014-05-10 18:11, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> I have pushed a new version which addresses your comments in the
> "for-forge-rtdm-rework" branch.
>
> You can ignore the "whitespace cleanup" commit, it is just there to
> allow me to simply commit without whitespace issu
On 05/10/2014 06:11 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 05/06/2014 07:14 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-05-05 22:48, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 04/29/2014 05:39 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-04-25 14:00, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 04/25/2014 12:40 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
On 05/06/2014 07:14 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2014-05-05 22:48, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 04/29/2014 05:39 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2014-04-25 14:00, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 04/25/2014 12:40 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2014-04-05 14:14, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>
On 2014-05-05 22:48, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 05:39 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-04-25 14:00, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 04/25/2014 12:40 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-04-05 14:14, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 03/07/2014 09:19 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wro
On 04/29/2014 05:39 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2014-04-25 14:00, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 04/25/2014 12:40 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2014-04-05 14:14, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 03/07/2014 09:19 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> here comes a second att
On 04/29/2014 05:39 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-04-25 14:00, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 04/25/2014 12:40 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-04-05 14:14, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 03/07/2014 09:19 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
here comes a second attempt at introducing a file des
On 2014-04-25 14:00, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 04/25/2014 12:40 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-04-05 14:14, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 03/07/2014 09:19 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
here comes a second attempt at introducing a file descriptor support for
>
On 04/25/2014 12:40 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2014-04-05 14:14, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 03/07/2014 09:19 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> here comes a second attempt at introducing a file descriptor support for
>>> other purposes than RTDM drivers.
>>>
>>> This time, t
On 2014-04-05 14:14, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 03/07/2014 09:19 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> here comes a second attempt at introducing a file descriptor support for
>> other purposes than RTDM drivers.
>>
>> This time, the file descriptors are called rtdm_fd and are part
On 03/07/2014 09:19 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> here comes a second attempt at introducing a file descriptor support for
> other purposes than RTDM drivers.
>
> This time, the file descriptors are called rtdm_fd and are part of the
> RTDM API, but can be used by the POSIX persona
Hi,
here comes a second attempt at introducing a file descriptor support for
other purposes than RTDM drivers.
This time, the file descriptors are called rtdm_fd and are part of the
RTDM API, but can be used by the POSIX personality. The actual RB-tree
where they are stored is part of the xnsys_
On 02/14/2014 06:08 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-14 17:28, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 02/14/2014 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-14 15:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/14/2014 02:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
I started to read through your patches. The general direction remains
valid
On 2014-02-16 19:47, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/15/2014 08:52 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-02-14 20:42, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 02/14/2014 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
/me neither, need to think about it. As I said, I'm concerned we change
something here now and the
On 02/15/2014 08:52 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2014-02-14 20:42, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 02/14/2014 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> /me neither, need to think about it. As I said, I'm concerned we change
>>> something here now and then realize later when implementing the RTDM
>>> native w
On 02/15/2014 08:52 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> - rtdm_context_set_ops to change the fd::ops pointer?
>
> On hold until we learn about a use case. It would have only made sense
> to keep it if that involved no interface changes.
The RTIPC driver is a good candidate for this, as it currently cascades
On 2014-02-14 20:42, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/14/2014 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> /me neither, need to think about it. As I said, I'm concerned we change
>> something here now and then realize later when implementing the RTDM
>> native wrapper that yet another change in the same area
On 02/14/2014 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> /me neither, need to think about it. As I said, I'm concerned we change
> something here now and then realize later when implementing the RTDM
> native wrapper that yet another change in the same area is required.
In order to move on, at least a little b
On 2014-02-14 17:28, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 02/14/2014 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-02-14 15:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 02/14/2014 02:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> I started to read through your patches. The general direction remains
>> valid and beneficial, but I ha
On 02/14/2014 05:48 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-14 17:29, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/14/2014 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-14 15:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/14/2014 02:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
I started to read through your patches. The general direction remains
On 2014-02-14 17:29, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/14/2014 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-02-14 15:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 02/14/2014 02:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> I started to read through your patches. The general direction remains
>> valid and beneficial, bu
On 02/14/2014 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-14 15:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/14/2014 02:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
I started to read through your patches. The general direction remains
valid and beneficial, but I have a few formal issues with some API
changes. In a nutshell: W
On 02/14/2014 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-14 15:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/14/2014 02:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
I started to read through your patches. The general direction remains
valid and beneficial, but I have a few formal issues with some API
changes. In a nutshell: W
On 2014-02-14 15:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/14/2014 02:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
I started to read through your patches. The general direction remains
valid and beneficial, but I have a few formal issues with some API
changes. In a nutshell: We really need to avoid layeri
On 02/14/2014 02:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
I started to read through your patches. The general direction remains
valid and beneficial, but I have a few formal issues with some API
changes. In a nutshell: We really need to avoid layering violations by
expressing public RTDM interfaces via Xenomai d
On 2014-02-14 14:23, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/14/2014 02:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2014-02-04 21:49, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 02/02/2014 01:21 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/01/2014 07:23 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>
> Hi Jan, Philippe,
>
>
On 02/14/2014 02:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2014-02-04 21:49, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/02/2014 01:21 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 02/01/2014 07:23 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi Jan, Philippe,
I have started working on rebasing RTDM on the common fd implementation
(xnfd).
On 2014-02-04 21:49, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/02/2014 01:21 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 02/01/2014 07:23 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jan, Philippe,
>>>
>>> I have started working on rebasing RTDM on the common fd implementation
>>> (xnfd). Before I start changing
On 02/02/2014 01:21 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 07:23 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jan, Philippe,
>>
>> I have started working on rebasing RTDM on the common fd implementation
>> (xnfd). Before I start changing the drivers, the current state of the
>> changes follow
On 02/01/2014 07:23 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>
> Hi Jan, Philippe,
>
> I have started working on rebasing RTDM on the common fd implementation
> (xnfd). Before I start changing the drivers, the current state of the
> changes follow as patches. These patches are based on the commits in the
Hi Jan, Philippe,
I have started working on rebasing RTDM on the common fd implementation
(xnfd). Before I start changing the drivers, the current state of the
changes follow as patches. These patches are based on the commits in the
"for-forge" branch in xenomai-gch repository. Please do not pull
33 matches
Mail list logo
