From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <44903E3B.3050405@domain.hid>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:50:03 +0200
From: Philippe Gerum <rpm@xenomai.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] /proc/xenomai broken...
References: <17552.12922.452992.652848@domain.hid>	<44903432.3070905@domain.hid>	<17552.13951.428423.915304@domain.hid>	<4490381F.6030309@domain.hid>	<449039EC.7070404@domain.hid>
	<17552.15676.790202.422989@domain.hid>
In-Reply-To: <17552.15676.790202.422989@domain.hid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches,
	discussions\)" <xenomai.xenomai.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core>,
	<mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
List-Archive: </public/xenomai-core>
List-Post: <mailto:xenomai@xenomai.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core>,
	<mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
To: Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>
Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>  > This said, the other option would be to move the call to 
>  > xnshadow_mount() from the xnarch_init() to __xeno_sys_init() in a 
>  > kernel-only section, just after xnpod_init_proc() has returned. There is 
>  > nothing done in the arch-layer for any architecture that would prevent 
>  > this. Btw, I'd say that "core" would be better than "xenomai" to name 
>  > this internal interface.
> 
> Ok for renaming. But no thread is ever bound to this interface, so the
> count is always 0. 
> 

xnshadow_sys_bind()/unbind() would be the proper place to track a 
cumulated count. I'm not sure that this is going to be that useful now, 
but at some point in the future, maybe we could get a benefit from 
having a uniform way of talking to any interface using procfs, including 
to the core one.

-- 

Philippe.