Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Shared irqs v.6

2006-02-01 Thread Jeroen Van den Keybus
I mean that the support of shared interrupts for ISA boards (edge-triggered stuff) is a kind of emulation to overcome the shortcommings of the initial design on the hardware level. The hardware was just not supposed to support shared interrupt channels. So, let's keep it a bit aside from

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Shared irqs v.6

2006-02-01 Thread Jan Kiszka
Jeroen Van den Keybus wrote: I mean that the support of shared interrupts for ISA boards (edge-triggered stuff) is a kind of emulation to overcome the shortcommings of the initial design on the hardware level. The hardware was just not supposed to support shared interrupt channels. So,

[Xenomai-core] [BUG] version mismatch

2006-02-01 Thread Anders Blomdell
in ksrc/arch/powerpc/patches/adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-ppc-1.2-00.patch: #define IPIPE_ARCH_STRING1.1-02 shouldn't this be #define IPIPE_ARCH_STRING1.2-00 -- Anders Blomdell ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] racy xnshadow_harden under CONFIG_PREEMPT

2006-02-01 Thread Jeroen Van den Keybus
I've installed both patches and the problem seems to have disappeared. I'll try it on another machine tomorrow, too. Meanwhile: thanks very much for the assistance ! While testing more thoroughly, my triggers for zero mutex values after acquiring the lock are going off again.I wasusing the SVN

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] racy xnshadow_harden under CONFIG_PREEMPT

2006-02-01 Thread Jan Kiszka
Jeroen Van den Keybus wrote: I've installed both patches and the problem seems to have disappeared. I'll try it on another machine tomorrow, too. Meanwhile: thanks very much for the assistance ! While testing more thoroughly, my triggers for zero mutex values after acquiring the lock are

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] racy xnshadow_harden under CONFIG_PREEMPT

2006-02-01 Thread Jan Kiszka
Jeroen Van den Keybus wrote: Revision 466 contains the mutex-info fix, but that is post -rc2. Why not switching to SVN head? Philippe asked to apply the patch against Xenomai 2.1-rc2. Can I safely patch it against the SVN tree ? After that, what will 'svn up' do to the patched tree ? The

[Xenomai-core] Are XN_ISR_CHAINED and XN_ISR_ENABLE mutually exclusive?

2006-02-01 Thread Anders Blomdell
While looking into how to implement sharing of interrupts between realtime and non-realtime domains (and applying Wolfgang Grandegger's patch [https://mail.gna.org/public/xenomai-core/2006-01/msg00233.html], which is necessary to make XN_ISR_ENABLE work at all on the PowerPC platform), I'm

Re: [Xenomai-core] Are XN_ISR_CHAINED and XN_ISR_ENABLE mutually exclusive?

2006-02-01 Thread Jan Kiszka
Anders Blomdell wrote: While looking into how to implement sharing of interrupts between realtime and non-realtime domains (and applying Wolfgang Grandegger's patch [https://mail.gna.org/public/xenomai-core/2006-01/msg00233.html], which is necessary to make XN_ISR_ENABLE work at all on the

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] racy xnshadow_harden under CONFIG_PREEMPT

2006-02-01 Thread Jeroen Van den Keybus
I've installed both patches and the problem seems to have disappeared. I'll try it on another machine tomorrow, too. Meanwhile: thanks very much for the assistance ! While testing more thoroughly, my triggers for zero mutex values after acquiring the lock are going off again.I wasusing the SVN

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] racy xnshadow_harden under CONFIG_PREEMPT

2006-02-01 Thread Jeroen Van den Keybus
Revision 466 contains the mutex-info fix, but that is post -rc2. Why notswitching to SVN head? Philippe asked to applythe patch against Xenomai 2.1-rc2. Can I safely patch it against the SVN tree ? After that,what will 'svn up' do to the patched tree ? Remember I'm quite new to Linux. Actually,

Re: [Xenomai-core] Are XN_ISR_CHAINED and XN_ISR_ENABLE mutually exclusive?

2006-02-01 Thread Anders Blomdell
Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: While looking into how to implement sharing of interrupts between realtime and non-realtime domains (and applying Wolfgang Grandegger's patch [https://mail.gna.org/public/xenomai-core/2006-01/msg00233.html], which is necessary

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] fix pthread cancellation in native skin

2006-02-01 Thread Philippe Gerum
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: This is not the only situation where a thread with a nucleus suspension bit need to run shortly in secondary mode: it also occurs when suspending with xnpod_suspend_thread() a thread running in secondary mode; the thread receives

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] fix pthread cancellation in native skin

2006-02-01 Thread Philippe Gerum
Philippe Gerum wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: This is not the only situation where a thread with a nucleus suspension bit need to run shortly in secondary mode: it also occurs when suspending with xnpod_suspend_thread() a thread running in secondary

[Xenomai-core] [Combo-PATCH] Shared interrupts (base, /proc support, edge-triggered stuff)

2006-02-01 Thread Dmitry Adamushko
Hi there, as I promised, here go the following patches (ordered as they have to be applied one by one) : 1) shirq-base.patch Adds the name field to the interrupt object of the nucleus layer. Reworks the related bits of the native skin (+ a few minor changes for posix and rtdm) to support the

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Shared irqs v.6

2006-02-01 Thread Jeroen Van den Keybus
I mean that the support of shared interrupts for ISA boards (edge-triggered stuff) is a kind of emulation to overcome the shortcommings of the initial design on the hardware level. The hardware was just not supposed to support shared interrupt channels. So, let's keep it a bit aside from