[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [rtl] RTAI: lockcpu

To: Zdenek Kabelac <kabi@fi.muni.cz>
Subject: Re: [rtl] RTAI: lockcpu
From: huib <huib@presidency.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 21:45:05 +0100
Cc: rtl@rtlinux.org
In-Reply-To: <3A2C12F7.733557DF@fi.muni.cz>
References: <3A265286.77299F13@q-soft-engineering.com>

At 09:56 PM 12/4/00 GMT, you wrote:
>> Just was an idea so you could check if (no realtime linux needed) you
>> have
>> those APIC errors, but it seems not needed when you already know that
>> :-)
>Well you shouldn't recieve any apic error if you are running with 66MHz
>bus.
>I'm starting to get them with 75MHz 
I tried 2.4.0-test11 kernel, no apic errors at all.

>> could those APIC errors be the problem ?
>
>No at all - many kernel developer try to find some excuses for their
>bugs :)....
Well, this is an unmodified RTAI example...
Did you ever try RTAI on your bp6?
 
huib

----------------------------------------------------------------
email : huib@f-one.nl
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tagline for Tuesday, December 05, 2000
A single fact can spoil a good argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [rtl] RTAI: lockcpu
  - From: "Christopher D. Carothers" <chrisc@cs.rpi.edu>

References:
- Re: [rtl] RTAI: lockcpu<3.0.2.32.20001130122648.00885e60@linuxserver> <3.0.2.32.20001130140332.00885e00@linuxserver>
  - From: Zdenek Kabelac <kabi@fi.muni.cz>

Prev by Date: Re: [rtl] rt_ipc semaphore delete (race) bug + FIX
Next by Date: Re: [rtl] timer ints
Prev by thread: Re: [rtl] RTAI: lockcpu<3.0.2.32.20001130122648.00885e60@linuxserver> <3.0.2.32.20001130140332.00885e00@linuxserver>
Next by thread: Re: [rtl] RTAI: lockcpu
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread