Re: RTAI 5 test2 et al.

On 05/18/2016 07:59 PM, John Doe wrote:
> Paolo,
>
> Which kernel are you using in 14.04 right now? I have modified a 3.14 
> patch to work properly with 3.13.0-86 which is the distro kernel rev. 
> But am not sure if it is the best choice.
>
I'd suggest to use not the kernel of a distribution. Succeeding in 
patching it may work, but you are never sure that their specific changes 
that did not go mainstream can be used as they are.
For RTAI one should assume the rule of matching a patch with the same 
kernel version found, or mirrored from, kernel.org
> I notice RTAI 5 Test2 has a 4.1 kernel patch included. Might a 4.4 
> kernel patch be in the near future?

We modify externally crafted patches. At the moment I do not see any.

Paolo

>
> Regards,
> todd
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Paolo Mantegazza 
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     On 05/14/2016 11:32 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>     Greetings!
>>
>>     It has been many years (at least 10). I once used the NMT
>>     RTL3.2-pre3 branch to host some 40+ full flight simulators here
>>     in the US.
>>
>>     In fact several of these devices are still in use and have
>>     performed admirably. We were using a pure kernel resident
>>     executive with various helper modules functioning in user space;
>>     connected via RT-fifos and shared memory. We maintained that
>>     patch through 2.4.37 but given the age of that kernel series we
>>     eventually dropped development.
>>
>>     However recently there is renewed interest in performing a few
>>     more large Level C/D full flight sim re-hosts using this
>>     solution.. I would be interested in trying to begin using our
>>     original baseline on top of an Ubuntu 14.04LTS install.
>>
>
>     Ubuntu 14.04LTS is what I'm using on two machines I use to develop
>     RTAI.
>
>>     Does RTAI 5 still maintain compatibility with the original API?
>>     It would be most desirable for us to be able to begin where we
>>     left off, using the executive and tools already developed from
>>     that work those years ago.
>>
>
>     That has been an aim of ours. The extent to which such an
>     objective has been met should be substantial, in my experience at
>     least. Author's intention is that any compatibility glitches
>     should be minor and trivial to solve.
>
>     Paolo
>
>>     Kind Regards,
>>     Todd Gearheart
>>     FlightSafety Intl Simulation
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Rtai mailing list
>>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     https://mail.rtai.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtai
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtai mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.rtai.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtai

_______________________________________________
Rtai mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.rtai.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtai