From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <45349113.2010700@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:15:15 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] Adeos/Xenomai Arm Port References: <1161013724.5503.65.camel@domain.hid> <1161034219.5131.81.camel@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <1161034219.5131.81.camel@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: Help regarding installation and common use of Xenomai List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: rpm@xenomai.org Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 17:48 +0200, Schl=E4gl Manfred jun. wrote: >>3. in-kernel periodic task & in-kernel timer benchmark=20 >> >>-sh-3.00# ./latency -t 2 -T 10 >>=3D=3D Sampling period: 100 us >>=3D=3D Test mode: in-kernel timer handler >>=3D=3D All results in microseconds >>latency: failed to start in-kernel timer benchmark, code -25 >=20 >=20 > Eh? That's weird. The fact that the RTDM benchmark device could be > opened, but that a wrong ioctl code seemed to flow to it might be the > sign of the worm, somewhere in the Adeos syscall propagation path. Btw, > are the RTDM-based benchmark drivers compiled statically into the > kernel? All benchmark drivers (timerbench, switchtest and irqbench) use the /dev/rttest%d devices, the device index is passed to latency and irqbench using the -D option whereas switchtest uses the ioctl error to find the correct device. So this error might simply be the sign that Manfred did not pass the -D option to latency. --=20 Gilles Chanteperdrix