Message ID | 20170320233349.14057-1-sikor6@gmail.com |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Headers | show |
Hello, On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:33:47 +0100, sikor6@gmail.com wrote: > From: Pawel Sikora <sikor6@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Pawel Sikora <sikor6@gmail.com> Thanks a lot for looking at the Xenomai package. It hasn't been updated in a while. > --- > package/xenomai/xenomai.hash | 2 +- > package/xenomai/xenomai.mk | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash b/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash > index 4d74472ee..e41859343 100644 > --- a/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash > +++ b/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash > @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ > # Locally computed; > -sha256 b6ff723cb0f3b1c2c4e15bccfd114b248dea1b4164a0ac0e612815379ce7caf8 xenomai-2.6.4.tar.bz2 > +sha256 4c396b4d447efd414c4d7c0894f97ef52b4ec45c87f512c14adee981a45f0e3b xenomai-3.0.3.tar.bz2 > diff --git a/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk b/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk > index 6e0e44163..28875b944 100644 > --- a/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk > +++ b/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ > > XENOMAI_VERSION = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_PACKAGE_XENOMAI_VERSION)) > ifeq ($(XENOMAI_VERSION),) > -XENOMAI_VERSION = 2.6.4 > +XENOMAI_VERSION = 3.0.3 My understanding was that Xenomai 3.x was significantly different from Xenomai 2.x. Should we support both versions? Is Xenomai 3.x now old enough that Xenomai 2.x is considered legacy? What problems will people currently using Xenomai 2.x face if we ask them to move to Xenomai 3.x? Thanks! Thomas
Hi Thomas! Thanks for prompt response ;-) I was testing building Xenomai against kernel 4.4.43 (for latest I-Pipe patch) for Armv7 Btw. Regarding your concerns I think it would be ok to support both versions, as version 2.6.x supports only kernels 2.4, 2.6.x and 3.x as it can be found in script for preparing the kernel in Xenomai (2.6.4) package: *~/P/s/z/g/buildroot ❯❯❯ cat output/build/xenomai-2.6.4/scripts/prepare-kernel.sh | grep -A 8 "Linux v2.6"* # Linux v2.6 and 3.x section # 2.6|3.*) config_file=Kconfig patch_architecture_specific="y" (Please correct me if I am wrong or if I missed something) So when building a Xenomai 2.6.4 and preparing Linux for 4.4.43 I've got an error saying that it's unsupported kernel. That's why I decided to bump version package for me, and I thought that it is a good idea for all either. But know I think it would be good to support both versions to not leave users with 2.6 and 3.x... Btw. JFYI I tested it in runtime on Zybo Zynq-7000. Logs: # uname -a Linux buildroot 4.4.43-ipipe #1 SMP Sun Mar 19 12:47:52 CET 2017 armv7l GNU/Linux # xeno-test Started child 96: /bin/sh /usr/bin/xeno-test-run-wrapper /usr/bin/xeno-test + echo 0 + testdir=/usr/bin + /usr/bin/smokey --run arith OK bufp skipped (no kernel support) cpu_affinity skipped (no kernel support) iddp skipped (no kernel support) leaks OK net_packet_dgram skipped (no kernel support) net_packet_raw skipped (no kernel support) net_udp skipped (no kernel support) ... # dmesg | grep Xenomai [ 0.226384] [Xenomai] scheduling class idle registered. [ 0.226415] [Xenomai] scheduling class rt registered. [ 0.226542] I-pipe: head domain Xenomai registered. [ 0.228182] [Xenomai] Cobalt v3.0.3 (Groovy Cosmic Halo) Toolchain used in Buildroot configurations: glibc 2.24 gcc 5.x I-Pipe patch: ipipe-core-4.4.43-arm-7.patch Linux: 4.4.43 Tested in runtime on HW Platform: Xilinx Zybo Zynq-7000 I thought it would be nice to add it. So... what do you propose now? I am quiet new in case of introducing my changes to buildroot code and I think I would need a little of guidance here if we want to do a support for both versions. Kind Regards, Pawel --- *Pozdrawiam,* *Paweł Sikora* *Pozdrawiam,* *Paweł Sikora* 2017-03-20 23:40 GMT+01:00 Thomas Petazzoni < thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>: > Hello, > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:33:47 +0100, sikor6@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Pawel Sikora <sikor6@gmail.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Pawel Sikora <sikor6@gmail.com> > > Thanks a lot for looking at the Xenomai package. It hasn't been updated > in a while. > > > --- > > package/xenomai/xenomai.hash | 2 +- > > package/xenomai/xenomai.mk | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash b/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash > > index 4d74472ee..e41859343 100644 > > --- a/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash > > +++ b/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash > > @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ > > # Locally computed; > > -sha256 b6ff723cb0f3b1c2c4e15bccfd114b248dea1b4164a0ac0e612815379ce7caf8 > xenomai-2.6.4.tar.bz2 > > +sha256 4c396b4d447efd414c4d7c0894f97ef52b4ec45c87f512c14adee981a45f0e3b > xenomai-3.0.3.tar.bz2 > > diff --git a/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk b/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk > > index 6e0e44163..28875b944 100644 > > --- a/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk > > +++ b/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk > > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ > > > > XENOMAI_VERSION = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_PACKAGE_XENOMAI_VERSION)) > > ifeq ($(XENOMAI_VERSION),) > > -XENOMAI_VERSION = 2.6.4 > > +XENOMAI_VERSION = 3.0.3 > > My understanding was that Xenomai 3.x was significantly different from > Xenomai 2.x. Should we support both versions? Is Xenomai 3.x now old > enough that Xenomai 2.x is considered legacy? What problems will people > currently using Xenomai 2.x face if we ask them to move to Xenomai 3.x? > > Thanks! > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > http://free-electrons.com >
On 20-03-17 23:40, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:33:47 +0100, sikor6@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Pawel Sikora <sikor6@gmail.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Pawel Sikora <sikor6@gmail.com> > > Thanks a lot for looking at the Xenomai package. It hasn't been updated > in a while. > >> --- >> package/xenomai/xenomai.hash | 2 +- >> package/xenomai/xenomai.mk | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash b/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash >> index 4d74472ee..e41859343 100644 >> --- a/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash >> +++ b/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash >> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ >> # Locally computed; >> -sha256 b6ff723cb0f3b1c2c4e15bccfd114b248dea1b4164a0ac0e612815379ce7caf8 xenomai-2.6.4.tar.bz2 >> +sha256 4c396b4d447efd414c4d7c0894f97ef52b4ec45c87f512c14adee981a45f0e3b xenomai-3.0.3.tar.bz2 >> diff --git a/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk b/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk >> index 6e0e44163..28875b944 100644 >> --- a/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk >> +++ b/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk >> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ >> >> XENOMAI_VERSION = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_PACKAGE_XENOMAI_VERSION)) >> ifeq ($(XENOMAI_VERSION),) >> -XENOMAI_VERSION = 2.6.4 >> +XENOMAI_VERSION = 3.0.3 > > My understanding was that Xenomai 3.x was significantly different from > Xenomai 2.x. Should we support both versions? Is Xenomai 3.x now old > enough that Xenomai 2.x is considered legacy? What problems will people > currently using Xenomai 2.x face if we ask them to move to Xenomai 3.x? There are some API differences, but (at least in dual-kernel mode), it is pretty easy to port over. I think we have lots of packages where version bumps introduce slight behavioural changes so I think this is OK. Regards, Arnout
Hello, On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:57:35 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > My understanding was that Xenomai 3.x was significantly different from > > Xenomai 2.x. Should we support both versions? Is Xenomai 3.x now old > > enough that Xenomai 2.x is considered legacy? What problems will people > > currently using Xenomai 2.x face if we ask them to move to Xenomai 3.x? > > There are some API differences, but (at least in dual-kernel mode), it is > pretty easy to port over. I think we have lots of packages where version bumps > introduce slight behavioural changes so I think this is OK. OK, thanks. As long as it doesn't require people having Xenomai applications to do a full rewrite, then I'm fine with a bump to 3.X as opposed to supporting both 2.x and 3.x. Minor adaptations are OK, just like is often needed when upgrading libraries, as you said. Best regards, Thomas
Corrected patch: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2017-March/187477.html *Pozdrawiam,* *Paweł Sikora* 2017-03-21 10:19 GMT+01:00 Thomas Petazzoni < thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>: > Hello, > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:57:35 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > > > My understanding was that Xenomai 3.x was significantly different from > > > Xenomai 2.x. Should we support both versions? Is Xenomai 3.x now old > > > enough that Xenomai 2.x is considered legacy? What problems will people > > > currently using Xenomai 2.x face if we ask them to move to Xenomai 3.x? > > > > There are some API differences, but (at least in dual-kernel mode), it > is > > pretty easy to port over. I think we have lots of packages where version > bumps > > introduce slight behavioural changes so I think this is OK. > > OK, thanks. As long as it doesn't require people having Xenomai > applications to do a full rewrite, then I'm fine with a bump to 3.X as > opposed to supporting both 2.x and 3.x. Minor adaptations are OK, just > like is often needed when upgrading libraries, as you said. > > Best regards, > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > http://free-electrons.com >
diff --git a/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash b/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash index 4d74472ee..e41859343 100644 --- a/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash +++ b/package/xenomai/xenomai.hash @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ # Locally computed; -sha256 b6ff723cb0f3b1c2c4e15bccfd114b248dea1b4164a0ac0e612815379ce7caf8 xenomai-2.6.4.tar.bz2 +sha256 4c396b4d447efd414c4d7c0894f97ef52b4ec45c87f512c14adee981a45f0e3b xenomai-3.0.3.tar.bz2 diff --git a/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk b/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk index 6e0e44163..28875b944 100644 --- a/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk +++ b/package/xenomai/xenomai.mk @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ XENOMAI_VERSION = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_PACKAGE_XENOMAI_VERSION)) ifeq ($(XENOMAI_VERSION),) -XENOMAI_VERSION = 2.6.4 +XENOMAI_VERSION = 3.0.3 else BR_NO_CHECK_HASH_FOR += $(XENOMAI_SOURCE) endif