[Xenomai] Porting a library to Xenomai
leo at alaxarxa.net
Wed Dec 16 16:45:38 CET 2015
El Dimarts, 15 de desembre de 2015, a les 16:46:21, Gilles Chanteperdrix va
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:16:23PM +0100, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> > El Divendres, 11 de desembre de 2015, a les 17:31:14, Gilles Chanteperdrix
> > va escriure:
> > [...]
> > > The fact that wrapping may be a problem for large applications where
> > > you only want a small part of the application to use xenomai
> > > services is the reason why Xenomai 3.x gives you another choice: do
> > > not wrap xenomai services, but specify you want to use them with the
> > > __RT() macro.
> > ... following this thread. There's a point that I'm still confused: the
> > rtnet>
> > part.
> > Since 2.6.4, rtnet was another project, that installed its includes
> > (rtnet.h and rtmac.h) in its own place. From 3.x rtnet is integrated.
> > Looking the rtnet.h file, there are declared some #define and some include
> > protected by __KERNEL__
> > My question is:
> > Using the POSIX wrapper, all the socket functions are wrap. But, how does
> > it affect the rtnet part of the code?
> > I mean, if I have a rtnet device, what is the difference of manually
> > change all the network functions with a -DRTNET protected Realtime
> > versions functions or use the wrap?
> > I understand that if I open a device that it's not rtnet, I lose the
> > Realtime, although I open the device with a POSIX wrapped function.
> > That's correct?
> There is no difference whatsoever between 2.6 and 3.x in the way to
> use RTnet through the POSIX wrapped interface or through the
> native/alchemy skin.
> If you decide to use RTnet through the POSIX skin, then the wrapped
> socket function will create RTnet sockets, and the wrapped sendto
> and recvfrom will send and receive data from that socket. No need
> for -DRTNET (or -D__XENO__ more likely, as this gets defined by
> If you decide to use RTnet through the alchemy skin, then you would
> use the rt_dev or rt_ variant (never can recall what they are
> called). Here you would probably use the ugly -D__XENO__.
> Now, the difference between 2.6 and 3.x, is that there is a third
> way to the POSIX interface: without the wrapping. In that case, if
> you call socket(), you get an Linux socket, and if you use
> _RT(socket()), you get an RTnet socket (if RTnet stack is compiled
> and loaded), of course, you then need to use _RT(sendto()) and
> _RT(recvfrom()) to send/receive from that socket.
the wrap mechanism IMHO open a huge gamma of possibilities. Just, two more
- Some of you have tried to "Xenomaize" a common POSIX library, for instance
with threads and sockets (Poco?... )?
- If I create a library (POSIX) and I wrap the functions (-
Wl,@/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/posix.wrappers). The library users must wrap
wrap their code too, right? (for instance if they have a printf...)
Linux User 152692 GPG: 05F4A7A949A2D9AA
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Xenomai