[Xenomai-core] [BUG] Interrupt problem on powerpc

[Xenomai-core] [BUG] Interrupt problem on powerpc

[Anders Blomdell]

On a PrPMC800 (PPC 7410 processor) withe Xenomai-2.1-rc2, I get the following if 
the interrupt handler takes too long (i.e. next interrupt gets generated before 
the previous one has finished)

[   42.543765]  [c00c2008] spin_bug+0xa8/0xc4
[   42.597617]  [c00c22d4] _raw_spin_lock+0x180/0x184
[   42.660637]  [c000f388] __ipipe_ack_irq+0x88/0x130
[   42.723657]  [c000efe4] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x140/0x268
[   42.791259]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
[   42.854279]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
[   42.923029]  [00000000] 0x0
[   42.959695]  [c0038348] __do_IRQ+0x134/0x164
[   43.015839]  [c000ed04] __ipipe_do_IRQ+0x2c/0x44
[   43.076567]  [c000eb08] __ipipe_sync_stage+0x1ec/0x228
[   43.144170]  [c0039420] ipipe_suspend_domain+0x7c/0xc4
[   43.211774]  [c000f0b0] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x20c/0x268
[   43.279377]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
[   43.342396]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
[   43.411145]  [c0006524] default_idle+0x10/0x60


Any ideas of where to look?

Regards

Anders Blomdell

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] Interrupt problem on powerpc

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1209 bytes --]

Anders Blomdell wrote:
> On a PrPMC800 (PPC 7410 processor) withe Xenomai-2.1-rc2, I get the
> following if the interrupt handler takes too long (i.e. next interrupt
> gets generated before the previous one has finished)
> 
> [   42.543765]  [c00c2008] spin_bug+0xa8/0xc4
> [   42.597617]  [c00c22d4] _raw_spin_lock+0x180/0x184
> [   42.660637]  [c000f388] __ipipe_ack_irq+0x88/0x130
> [   42.723657]  [c000efe4] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x140/0x268
> [   42.791259]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
> [   42.854279]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
> [   42.923029]  [00000000] 0x0
> [   42.959695]  [c0038348] __do_IRQ+0x134/0x164
> [   43.015839]  [c000ed04] __ipipe_do_IRQ+0x2c/0x44
> [   43.076567]  [c000eb08] __ipipe_sync_stage+0x1ec/0x228
> [   43.144170]  [c0039420] ipipe_suspend_domain+0x7c/0xc4
> [   43.211774]  [c000f0b0] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x20c/0x268
> [   43.279377]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
> [   43.342396]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
> [   43.411145]  [c0006524] default_idle+0x10/0x60
> 

I think some probably important information is missing above this
back-trace. What does the kernel state before these lines?

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] Interrupt problem on powerpc

[Anders Blomdell]

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Anders Blomdell wrote:
> 
>>On a PrPMC800 (PPC 7410 processor) withe Xenomai-2.1-rc2, I get the
>>following if the interrupt handler takes too long (i.e. next interrupt
>>gets generated before the previous one has finished)
>>
>>[   42.543765]  [c00c2008] spin_bug+0xa8/0xc4
>>[   42.597617]  [c00c22d4] _raw_spin_lock+0x180/0x184
>>[   42.660637]  [c000f388] __ipipe_ack_irq+0x88/0x130
>>[   42.723657]  [c000efe4] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x140/0x268
>>[   42.791259]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
>>[   42.854279]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
>>[   42.923029]  [00000000] 0x0
>>[   42.959695]  [c0038348] __do_IRQ+0x134/0x164
>>[   43.015839]  [c000ed04] __ipipe_do_IRQ+0x2c/0x44
>>[   43.076567]  [c000eb08] __ipipe_sync_stage+0x1ec/0x228
>>[   43.144170]  [c0039420] ipipe_suspend_domain+0x7c/0xc4
>>[   43.211774]  [c000f0b0] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x20c/0x268
>>[   43.279377]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
>>[   43.342396]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
>>[   43.411145]  [c0006524] default_idle+0x10/0x60
>>
> 
> 
> I think some probably important information is missing above this
> back-trace. 
You are so right!

 > What does the kernel state before these lines?

[   42.346643] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, swapper/0
[   42.415438]  lock: c01c943c, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: swapper/0, .owner_cpu: 0
[   42.511681] Call trace:
[   42.543765]  [c00c2008] spin_bug+0xa8/0xc4
[   42.597617]  [c00c22d4] _raw_spin_lock+0x180/0x184
[   42.660637]  [c000f388] __ipipe_ack_irq+0x88/0x130
[   42.723657]  [c000efe4] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x140/0x268
[   42.791259]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
[   42.854279]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
[   42.923029]  [00000000] 0x0
[   42.959695]  [c0038348] __do_IRQ+0x134/0x164
[   43.015839]  [c000ed04] __ipipe_do_IRQ+0x2c/0x44
[   43.076567]  [c000eb08] __ipipe_sync_stage+0x1ec/0x228
[   43.144170]  [c0039420] ipipe_suspend_domain+0x7c/0xc4
[   43.211774]  [c000f0b0] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x20c/0x268
[   43.279377]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
[   43.342396]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
[   43.411145]  [c0006524] default_idle+0x10/0x60


It might be that the problem is related to the fact that the interrupt is a 
shared one (Harrier chip, "Functional Exception"), that is used for both 
message-passing (should be RT) and UART (Linux, i.e. non-RT), my current IRQ 
handler always pends the interrupt to the linux domain (RTDM_IRQ_PROPAGATE), 
because all other attempts (RTDM_IRQ_ENABLE when it wasn't a UART interrupt) has 
left the interrupts turned off.

What I believe should be done, is

   1. When UART interrupt is received, disable further non-RT interrupts
      on this IRQ-line, pend interrupt to Linux.
   2. Handle RT interrupts on this IRQ line
   3. When Linux has finished the pended interrupt, reenable non-RT interrupts.

but I have neither been able to achieve this, nor to verify that it is the right 
thing to do...

Regards

Anders Blomdell

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] Interrupt problem on powerpc

[Philippe Gerum]

Anders Blomdell wrote:
> On a PrPMC800 (PPC 7410 processor) withe Xenomai-2.1-rc2, I get the 
> following if the interrupt handler takes too long (i.e. next interrupt 
> gets generated before the previous one has finished)
> 
> [   42.543765]  [c00c2008] spin_bug+0xa8/0xc4
> [   42.597617]  [c00c22d4] _raw_spin_lock+0x180/0x184

Someone (in arch/ppc64/kernel/*.c?) is spinlocking+irqsave desc->lock for any 
given IRQ without using the Adeos *_hw() spinlock variant that masks the interrupt 
at hw level. So we seem to have:

spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock)
	<hw IRQ>
		__ipipe_grab_irq
			__ipipe_handle_irq
				__ipipe_ack_irq
					spin_lock...(&desc->lock)
						deadlock.

The point is about having spinlock_irqsave only _virtually_ masking the interrupts 
by preventing their associated Linux handler from being called, but despite this, 
Adeos still actually acquires and acknowledges the incoming hw events before 
logging them, even if their associated action happen to be postponed until 
spinlock_irq_restore() is called.

To solve this, all spinlocks potentially touched by the ipipe's primary IRQ 
handler and/or the code it calls indirectly, _must_ be operated using the _hw() 
call variant all over the kernel, so that no hw IRQ can be taken while those 
spinlocks are held by Linux. Usually, only the spinlock(s) protecting the 
interrupt descriptors or the PIC hardware are concerned.

> [   42.660637]  [c000f388] __ipipe_ack_irq+0x88/0x130
> [   42.723657]  [c000efe4] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x140/0x268
> [   42.791259]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
> [   42.854279]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
> [   42.923029]  [00000000] 0x0
> [   42.959695]  [c0038348] __do_IRQ+0x134/0x164
> [   43.015839]  [c000ed04] __ipipe_do_IRQ+0x2c/0x44
> [   43.076567]  [c000eb08] __ipipe_sync_stage+0x1ec/0x228
> [   43.144170]  [c0039420] ipipe_suspend_domain+0x7c/0xc4
> [   43.211774]  [c000f0b0] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x20c/0x268
> [   43.279377]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
> [   43.342396]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
> [   43.411145]  [c0006524] default_idle+0x10/0x60
> 
> 
> Any ideas of where to look?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Anders Blomdell
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xenomai-core mailing list
> Xenomai-core@domain.hid
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
> 


-- 

Philippe.

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] Interrupt problem on powerpc

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3894 bytes --]

Anders Blomdell wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Anders Blomdell wrote:
>>
>>> On a PrPMC800 (PPC 7410 processor) withe Xenomai-2.1-rc2, I get the
>>> following if the interrupt handler takes too long (i.e. next interrupt
>>> gets generated before the previous one has finished)
>>>
>>> [   42.543765]  [c00c2008] spin_bug+0xa8/0xc4
>>> [   42.597617]  [c00c22d4] _raw_spin_lock+0x180/0x184
>>> [   42.660637]  [c000f388] __ipipe_ack_irq+0x88/0x130
>>> [   42.723657]  [c000efe4] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x140/0x268
>>> [   42.791259]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
>>> [   42.854279]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
>>> [   42.923029]  [00000000] 0x0
>>> [   42.959695]  [c0038348] __do_IRQ+0x134/0x164
>>> [   43.015839]  [c000ed04] __ipipe_do_IRQ+0x2c/0x44
>>> [   43.076567]  [c000eb08] __ipipe_sync_stage+0x1ec/0x228
>>> [   43.144170]  [c0039420] ipipe_suspend_domain+0x7c/0xc4
>>> [   43.211774]  [c000f0b0] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x20c/0x268
>>> [   43.279377]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
>>> [   43.342396]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
>>> [   43.411145]  [c0006524] default_idle+0x10/0x60
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think some probably important information is missing above this
>> back-trace. 
> You are so right!
> 
>> What does the kernel state before these lines?
> 
> [   42.346643] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, swapper/0
> [   42.415438]  lock: c01c943c, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: swapper/0,
> .owner_cpu: 0
> [   42.511681] Call trace:
> [   42.543765]  [c00c2008] spin_bug+0xa8/0xc4
> [   42.597617]  [c00c22d4] _raw_spin_lock+0x180/0x184
> [   42.660637]  [c000f388] __ipipe_ack_irq+0x88/0x130
> [   42.723657]  [c000efe4] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x140/0x268
> [   42.791259]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
> [   42.854279]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
> [   42.923029]  [00000000] 0x0
> [   42.959695]  [c0038348] __do_IRQ+0x134/0x164
> [   43.015839]  [c000ed04] __ipipe_do_IRQ+0x2c/0x44
> [   43.076567]  [c000eb08] __ipipe_sync_stage+0x1ec/0x228
> [   43.144170]  [c0039420] ipipe_suspend_domain+0x7c/0xc4
> [   43.211774]  [c000f0b0] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x20c/0x268
> [   43.279377]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
> [   43.342396]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
> [   43.411145]  [c0006524] default_idle+0x10/0x60
> 
> 
> It might be that the problem is related to the fact that the interrupt
> is a shared one (Harrier chip, "Functional Exception"), that is used for
> both message-passing (should be RT) and UART (Linux, i.e. non-RT), my
> current IRQ handler always pends the interrupt to the linux domain
> (RTDM_IRQ_PROPAGATE), because all other attempts (RTDM_IRQ_ENABLE when
> it wasn't a UART interrupt) has left the interrupts turned off.
> 
> What I believe should be done, is
> 
>   1. When UART interrupt is received, disable further non-RT interrupts
>      on this IRQ-line, pend interrupt to Linux.
>   2. Handle RT interrupts on this IRQ line
>   3. When Linux has finished the pended interrupt, reenable non-RT
> interrupts.
> 
> but I have neither been able to achieve this, nor to verify that it is
> the right thing to do...

Your approach is basically what I proposed some years back on rtai-dev
for handling unresolvable shared RT/NRT IRQs. I once successfully tested
such a setup with two network cards, one RT, the other Linux.

So when you are really doomed and cannot change the IRQ line of your RT
device, this is a kind of emergency workaround. Not nice and generic
(you have to write the stub for disabling the NRT IRQ source), but it
should work.


Anyway, I do not understand what made your spinlock recurs. This shared
IRQ scenario should only cause indeterminism to the RT driver (by
blocking the line until the Linux handler can release it), but it must
not trigger this bug.

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] Interrupt problem on powerpc

[Anders Blomdell]

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Anders Blomdell wrote:
> 
>>Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>>Anders Blomdell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On a PrPMC800 (PPC 7410 processor) withe Xenomai-2.1-rc2, I get the
>>>>following if the interrupt handler takes too long (i.e. next interrupt
>>>>gets generated before the previous one has finished)
>>>>
>>>>[   42.543765]  [c00c2008] spin_bug+0xa8/0xc4
>>>>[   42.597617]  [c00c22d4] _raw_spin_lock+0x180/0x184
>>>>[   42.660637]  [c000f388] __ipipe_ack_irq+0x88/0x130
>>>>[   42.723657]  [c000efe4] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x140/0x268
>>>>[   42.791259]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
>>>>[   42.854279]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
>>>>[   42.923029]  [00000000] 0x0
>>>>[   42.959695]  [c0038348] __do_IRQ+0x134/0x164
>>>>[   43.015839]  [c000ed04] __ipipe_do_IRQ+0x2c/0x44
>>>>[   43.076567]  [c000eb08] __ipipe_sync_stage+0x1ec/0x228
>>>>[   43.144170]  [c0039420] ipipe_suspend_domain+0x7c/0xc4
>>>>[   43.211774]  [c000f0b0] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x20c/0x268
>>>>[   43.279377]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
>>>>[   43.342396]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
>>>>[   43.411145]  [c0006524] default_idle+0x10/0x60
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I think some probably important information is missing above this
>>>back-trace. 
>>
>>You are so right!
>>
>>
>>>What does the kernel state before these lines?
>>
>>[   42.346643] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, swapper/0
>>[   42.415438]  lock: c01c943c, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: swapper/0,
>>.owner_cpu: 0
>>[   42.511681] Call trace:
>>[   42.543765]  [c00c2008] spin_bug+0xa8/0xc4
>>[   42.597617]  [c00c22d4] _raw_spin_lock+0x180/0x184
>>[   42.660637]  [c000f388] __ipipe_ack_irq+0x88/0x130
>>[   42.723657]  [c000efe4] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x140/0x268
>>[   42.791259]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
>>[   42.854279]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
>>[   42.923029]  [00000000] 0x0
>>[   42.959695]  [c0038348] __do_IRQ+0x134/0x164
>>[   43.015839]  [c000ed04] __ipipe_do_IRQ+0x2c/0x44
>>[   43.076567]  [c000eb08] __ipipe_sync_stage+0x1ec/0x228
>>[   43.144170]  [c0039420] ipipe_suspend_domain+0x7c/0xc4
>>[   43.211774]  [c000f0b0] __ipipe_handle_irq+0x20c/0x268
>>[   43.279377]  [c000f144] __ipipe_grab_irq+0x38/0xa4
>>[   43.342396]  [c0005058] __ipipe_ret_from_except+0x0/0xc
>>[   43.411145]  [c0006524] default_idle+0x10/0x60
>>
>>
>>It might be that the problem is related to the fact that the interrupt
>>is a shared one (Harrier chip, "Functional Exception"), that is used for
>>both message-passing (should be RT) and UART (Linux, i.e. non-RT), my
>>current IRQ handler always pends the interrupt to the linux domain
>>(RTDM_IRQ_PROPAGATE), because all other attempts (RTDM_IRQ_ENABLE when
>>it wasn't a UART interrupt) has left the interrupts turned off.
>>
>>What I believe should be done, is
>>
>>  1. When UART interrupt is received, disable further non-RT interrupts
>>     on this IRQ-line, pend interrupt to Linux.
>>  2. Handle RT interrupts on this IRQ line
>>  3. When Linux has finished the pended interrupt, reenable non-RT
>>interrupts.
>>
>>but I have neither been able to achieve this, nor to verify that it is
>>the right thing to do...
> 
> 
> Your approach is basically what I proposed some years back on rtai-dev
> for handling unresolvable shared RT/NRT IRQs. I once successfully tested
> such a setup with two network cards, one RT, the other Linux.
> 
> So when you are really doomed and cannot change the IRQ line of your RT
> device, this is a kind of emergency workaround. Not nice and generic
> (you have to write the stub for disabling the NRT IRQ source), but it
> should work.
I'm doomed, the interrupts live in the same chip...
The problem is that I have not found any good place to reenable the non-RT 
interrupts.

> Anyway, I do not understand what made your spinlock recurs. This shared
> IRQ scenario should only cause indeterminism to the RT driver (by
> blocking the line until the Linux handler can release it), but it must
> not trigger this bug.
OK, seems like  have two problems then, I'll try to hunt it down


/Anders

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] Interrupt problem on powerpc

[Anders Blomdell]

Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Anders Blomdell wrote:
> 
>> On a PrPMC800 (PPC 7410 processor) withe Xenomai-2.1-rc2, I get the 
>> following if the interrupt handler takes too long (i.e. next interrupt 
>> gets generated before the previous one has finished)
>>
>> [   42.543765]  [c00c2008] spin_bug+0xa8/0xc4
>> [   42.597617]  [c00c22d4] _raw_spin_lock+0x180/0x184
> 
> 
> Someone (in arch/ppc64/kernel/*.c?) is spinlocking+irqsave desc->lock 
more likely arch/ppc/kernel/*.c :-)

> for any given IRQ without using the Adeos *_hw() spinlock variant that 
> masks the interrupt at hw level. So we seem to have:
> 
> spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock)
>     <hw IRQ>
>         __ipipe_grab_irq
>             __ipipe_handle_irq
>                 __ipipe_ack_irq
>                     spin_lock...(&desc->lock)
>                         deadlock.
> 
> The point is about having spinlock_irqsave only _virtually_ masking the 
> interrupts by preventing their associated Linux handler from being 
> called, but despite this, Adeos still actually acquires and acknowledges 
> the incoming hw events before logging them, even if their associated 
> action happen to be postponed until spinlock_irq_restore() is called.
> 
> To solve this, all spinlocks potentially touched by the ipipe's primary 
> IRQ handler and/or the code it calls indirectly, _must_ be operated 
> using the _hw() call variant all over the kernel, so that no hw IRQ can 
> be taken while those spinlocks are held by Linux. Usually, only the 
> spinlock(s) protecting the interrupt descriptors or the PIC hardware are 
> concerned.
So you will expect an addition to the ipipe patch then?

/Anders

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] Interrupt problem on powerpc

[Philippe Gerum]

Anders Blomdell wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> 
>> Anders Blomdell wrote:
>>
>>> On a PrPMC800 (PPC 7410 processor) withe Xenomai-2.1-rc2, I get the 
>>> following if the interrupt handler takes too long (i.e. next 
>>> interrupt gets generated before the previous one has finished)
>>>
>>> [   42.543765]  [c00c2008] spin_bug+0xa8/0xc4
>>> [   42.597617]  [c00c22d4] _raw_spin_lock+0x180/0x184
>>
>>
>>
>> Someone (in arch/ppc64/kernel/*.c?) is spinlocking+irqsave desc->lock 
> 
> more likely arch/ppc/kernel/*.c :-)
>

Gah... looks like I'm still confused by ia64 issues I'm chasing right now. (Why on 
earth do we need so many bits on our CPUs that only serve the purpose of raising 
so many problems?)

>> for any given IRQ without using the Adeos *_hw() spinlock variant that 
>> masks the interrupt at hw level. So we seem to have:
>>
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock)
>>     <hw IRQ>
>>         __ipipe_grab_irq
>>             __ipipe_handle_irq
>>                 __ipipe_ack_irq
>>                     spin_lock...(&desc->lock)
>>                         deadlock.
>>
>> The point is about having spinlock_irqsave only _virtually_ masking 
>> the interrupts by preventing their associated Linux handler from being 
>> called, but despite this, Adeos still actually acquires and 
>> acknowledges the incoming hw events before logging them, even if their 
>> associated action happen to be postponed until spinlock_irq_restore() 
>> is called.
>>
>> To solve this, all spinlocks potentially touched by the ipipe's 
>> primary IRQ handler and/or the code it calls indirectly, _must_ be 
>> operated using the _hw() call variant all over the kernel, so that no 
>> hw IRQ can be taken while those spinlocks are held by Linux. Usually, 
>> only the spinlock(s) protecting the interrupt descriptors or the PIC 
>> hardware are concerned.
> 
> So you will expect an addition to the ipipe patch then?
>

Yep. We first need to find out who's grabbing the shared spinlock using the 
vanilla Linux primitives.

> /Anders
> 


-- 

Philippe.

[Xenomai-core] [BUG] version mismatch

[Anders Blomdell]

in ksrc/arch/powerpc/patches/adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-ppc-1.2-00.patch:

   #define IPIPE_ARCH_STRING        "1.1-02"

shouldn't this be

   #define IPIPE_ARCH_STRING        "1.2-00"

-- 

Anders Blomdell

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] version mismatch

[Philippe Gerum]

Anders Blomdell wrote:
> in ksrc/arch/powerpc/patches/adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-ppc-1.2-00.patch:
> 
>   #define IPIPE_ARCH_STRING        "1.1-02"
> 
> shouldn't this be
> 
>   #define IPIPE_ARCH_STRING        "1.2-00"
> 

Yes it should. Fixed, thanks.

-- 

Philippe.