Re: [Xenomai] Porting a library to Xenomai

[Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:45:38PM +0100, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> El Dimarts, 15 de desembre de 2015, a les 16:46:21, Gilles Chanteperdrix va 
> escriure:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:16:23PM +0100, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> > > El Divendres, 11 de desembre de 2015, a les 17:31:14, Gilles Chanteperdrix
> > > va escriure:
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > The fact that wrapping may be a problem for large applications where
> > > > you only want a small part of the application to use xenomai
> > > > services is the reason why Xenomai 3.x gives you another choice: do
> > > > not wrap xenomai services, but specify you want to use them with the
> > > > __RT() macro.
> > >  
> > >  ... following this thread. There's a point that I'm still confused: the
> > >  rtnet> 
> > > part.
> > > 
> > > Since 2.6.4, rtnet was another project, that installed its includes
> > > (rtnet.h and rtmac.h) in its own place. From 3.x rtnet is integrated.
> > > 
> > > Looking the rtnet.h file, there are declared some #define and some include
> > > protected by __KERNEL__
> > > 
> > > My question is:
> > > 
> > > Using the POSIX wrapper, all the socket functions are wrap. But, how does
> > > it affect the rtnet part of the code?
> > > 
> > > I mean, if I have a rtnet device, what is the difference of manually
> > > change all the network functions with a -DRTNET protected Realtime
> > > versions functions or use the wrap?
> > > 
> > > I understand that if I open a device that it's not rtnet, I lose the
> > > Realtime, although I open the device with a POSIX wrapped function.
> > > That's correct?
> > There is no difference whatsoever between 2.6 and 3.x in the way to
> > use RTnet through the POSIX wrapped interface or through the
> > native/alchemy skin.
> > 
> > If you decide to use RTnet through the POSIX skin, then the wrapped
> > socket function will create RTnet sockets, and the wrapped sendto
> > and recvfrom will send and receive data from that socket. No need
> > for -DRTNET (or -D__XENO__ more likely, as this gets defined by
> > xeno-config).
> > 
> > If you decide to use RTnet through the alchemy skin, then you would
> > use the rt_dev or rt_ variant (never can recall what they are
> > called). Here you would probably use the ugly -D__XENO__.
> > 
> > Now, the difference between 2.6 and 3.x, is that there is a third
> > way to the POSIX interface: without the wrapping. In that case, if
> > you call socket(), you get an Linux socket, and if you use
> > _RT(socket()), you get an RTnet socket (if RTnet stack is compiled
> > and loaded), of course, you then need to use _RT(sendto()) and
> > _RT(recvfrom()) to send/receive from that socket.
> 
> Thanks Gilles,
> 
> the wrap mechanism IMHO open a huge gamma of possibilities. Just, two more 
> questions:
> 
> - Some of you have tried to "Xenomaize" a common POSIX library, for instance 
> with threads and sockets (Poco?... )?

Yes, back in 2006 to 2009, I ported several applications related to
VOIP to use Xenomai and RTnet. From this experience, I wrote this
guide:
https://xenomai.org/2014/08/porting-a-linux-application-to-xenomai-dual-kernel/

> 
> - If I create a library (POSIX) and I wrap the functions (-
> Wl,@/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/posix.wrappers). The library users must wrap 
> wrap their code too, right? (for instance if they have a
> printf...)

You should compile (and more importantly link edit) all your code,
whether library or executable, with the flags obtained via
xeno-config. If you want to use the static version of the POSIX skin
library, it gets a little more complicated, you do not want to wrap
the symbols of the POSIX skin library itself and you should use the
"wrap-link.sh" script, to do the link edit in two stages.

-- 
					    Gilles.
https://click-hack.org