From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4B95253E.3030303@domain.hid> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:26:38 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Xenomai-core] u_mode and condvar fixes. List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Xenomai core Hi, I pushed the changes fixing the u_mode (taken from Jan, slightly modified) and condvar stuff (not entirely taken from Jan's changes), as well as the modifications coming from Philippe's branch. However, two questions remain open: - as in Jan's original patch, the u_mode stuff tests the presence of the new syscall by testing whether it returns -ENOSYS. Now that we have the vdso, I wonder if we should not use a vdso bit for this. This would give us a systematic way of testing such syscalls extension. - the condvar fix only fixes the general case, using errno, it does not add any new syscall. I am not entirely convinced we really need to add new syscalls. In fact we could use special values in the existing ones. Or have access in kernel-space to the a process' vdso flags, allowing to adapt according to these flags. I am simply wondering what is the cleanest way. What do you think? Thanks in advance. -- Gilles.