xenomai 3.1/ipipe-core-4.19.128-cip28-arm-10.patch

Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka at siemens.com
Mon Jul 13 19:08:46 CEST 2020

On 08.07.20 01:04, Robert Berger via Xenomai wrote:
> It looks like either we hit a glibc issue, or something is not clear to 
> me in the xenomai test case.
> The glibc has a fallback for the unknown syscall. clock_nanosleep_time64
> Is this what the xenomai testcase tries to tell us?
> Than that is not an error, but fine;)

If glibc is probing the existence of the new syscall by calling it, we 
may silence the warning path. To my current reading, it must have been 
triggered from a Xenomai thread in primary domain - are we sure that 
this is correct behavior? Could you set a breakpoint on glibc call and 
provide a backtrace?


Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

More information about the Xenomai mailing list