From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] uvm/vxworks and uvm/vrtx are still being built From: Philippe Gerum In-Reply-To: <44BEAD52.8040309@domain.hid> References: <44BD77E6.6030004@domain.hid> <1153340912.5032.30.camel@domain.hid> <44BEAD52.8040309@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:47:02 +0200 Message-Id: <1153378022.5132.3.camel@domain.hid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: rpm@xenomai.org List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai-core On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 00:08 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: > > ... > > To sum up, the UVM support is hard to explain to potential users, adds a > > fair amount of confusion when compared to using the direct syscall > > interfaces from user-space, and can't evolve up to the point where I > > could be happy with them. > > > > Thanks for clarifying. I never looked that deep into the UVM (except > when I broke something with an arch patch). I just wrote that mail while > waiting on the user-space part for being built ;). The UVM lib is > default=y, maybe something we should change soon as well. True. It's going to be tagged as deprecated in 2.2.1, and switched off by default. > > > PS: regarding the RTAI issue, most projects migrating from there to Xeno > > are AFAIK, converting their applications to use the native skin > > directly, or even the POSIX one. Fact is that RTAI is more than 300 > > calls, if you take into account all the interface variants. Given the > > nature of what is actually a set of APIs, more than a single one, the > > sandboxed environment the UVM brings does not fit the RTAI interfaces at > > all. People really interested in having a 100% compatible RTAI skin over > > Xenomai that accurately emulates LXRT should definitely implement the > > direct syscall interface for it. > > > > AFAIK no one insisted yet on user-space support for the RTAI skin. So > this seconds that porting actually takes place at the application level. > I guess it would take a rather large RTAI app so that writing a really > compatible skin becomes worth the effort. > Same views here. > Jan > -- Philippe.