RFC: QNX4 vs. QNX6

Good point, but you still have to count them.

“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:afd1uv$i7d$1@inn.qnx.com

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <> QTPS@EarthLink.net> > wrote in message
news:afd1ce$hrk$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“David Gibbs” <> dagibbs@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:afathu$4g9$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …

“sin pr” is a bit more interesting. The idea of a proxy is totally
lost under QNX6 – there is no real idea of an independent OS resource
like a proxies – pulses don’t have this create/destroy type of life
cycle. But, what was also really nice about “sin pr” was to see the
count of the proxy, that is, to see if a process was missing/not
keeping
up with the incoming proxies. The ability to get a list/count of
queued pulses for a channel would be quite handy.

A count of all outstanding messages could also be interesting to show
when
a
process isn’t keeping up or why it isn’t responding to my lower priority
process.

Outstanding messages? Maybe I’m missing something but that’s
already available. Just check how may process/thread are SEND
block on a perticular destination. Messages are not queued per se.


“sin root”, and “sin dir” I’ve never used. (gives prefix root,
and cwd, for each process.) Could be helpful, but probably not
important.

Hey, that’s cool. I never knew they existed.

\

Thomas Emberson <temberson@softwareremodeling.com> wrote:

Mario Charest postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote:

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <> QTPS@EarthLink.net> > wrote in message
news:afd1ce$hrk$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“David Gibbs” <> dagibbs@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:afathu$4g9$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …

“sin pr” is a bit more interesting. The idea of a proxy is totally
lost under QNX6 – there is no real idea of an independent OS resource
like a proxies – pulses don’t have this create/destroy type of life
cycle. But, what was also really nice about “sin pr” was to see the
count of the proxy, that is, to see if a process was missing/not keeping
up with the incoming proxies. The ability to get a list/count of
queued pulses for a channel would be quite handy.

A count of all outstanding messages could also be interesting to show when
a
process isn’t keeping up or why it isn’t responding to my lower priority
process.

Outstanding messages? Maybe I’m missing something but that’s
already available. Just check how may process/thread are SEND
block on a perticular destination. Messages are not queued per se.

That is somewhat a like to using the insturmented kernel to see what IRQ’s
are attached to. As well, don’t forget about pulses either, it would be
interesting to see a list of pulses/messages queued up on a channel.

Ummmm, I beg to differ :slight_smile: Using the instrumented kernel involves changing
your configuration, and restarting your apps. Using pidin involves:

pidin | grep “SEND.*pid” | wc

where “pid” is replaced by your process ID :slight_smile:

This also answers Bill’s query of how to count them; let “wc” do the work…

Cheers,
-RK


Robert Krten, PARSE Software Devices +1 613 599 8316.
Realtime Systems Architecture, Books, Video-based and Instructor-led
Training and Consulting at www.parse.com.
Email my initials at parse dot com.

OK, but this would not include pulses.

Why not just add the real work into pidin.

“Robert Krten” <nospam88@parse.com> wrote in message
news:afdnvc$40n$1@inn.qnx.com

Ummmm, I beg to differ > :slight_smile: > Using the instrumented kernel involves
changing
your configuration, and restarting your apps. Using pidin involves:

pidin | grep “SEND.*pid” | wc

where “pid” is replaced by your process ID > :slight_smile:

This also answers Bill’s query of how to count them; let “wc” do the
work…

Cheers,
-RK

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <QTPS@earthlink.net> wrote:

OK, but this would not include pulses.
Why not just add the real work into pidin.

Hmm, I agree :slight_smile:

“Robert Krten” <> nospam88@parse.com> > wrote in message
news:afdnvc$40n$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

Ummmm, I beg to differ > :slight_smile: > Using the instrumented kernel
involves changing your configuration, and restarting your
apps. Using pidin involves:

pidin | grep “SEND.*pid” | wc

Wait, wait, don’t forget about the processes REPLY blocked,

pidin | grep -e “REPLY.* PID|SEND.* PID” | wc


Anyway, if you had PE, you would be running with the instrumented kernel
anyway, right, you never know when you might need to see what interrupts
are being used. :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

BTW, pidin irq would have been really handy this morning, damn 8 port
serial card!

regards,
Tom

QTPS@EarthLink.net sed in <afctcu$f19$1@inn.qnx.com>:

If not, why not just post the source to QNX4’s & QNX6’s console driver and

I think I said this several times but

devc-con source was in “Character (Serial) DDK” in 6.1 CDROM. (x86 only)

not checked for 6.2

but clunking for ditto thingies seems to need a
major reengineering.

If I may add my two cents…

In article <aeku4r$3ar$1@inn.qnx.com>, Jens H Jorgensen wrote:

It is true that it is more convenient for a user that knows what he/she is
doing to be able to choose root partition at boot time. But the problem is
that you cannot change the default root partition currently, so if a
non-expect user has to use a certain root partition then that user has to
press the correct key, which can be a big challenge for some users.

The advantage with doing it through fdisk is that an expert user can setup
which partition to use as root partition, and then the novice user is not
presented with the choice after that.

The current mode is basically an expert mode for the boot strap code, so if
there was a “use active partition” version of the boot strap code that would
be very nice.

Thanks
Jens



“Kris Warkentin” <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:aekqsk$6ru$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
What about the situation when there are multiple OS partitions? I’m just
thinking that the timeout for the choice is quite short and it’s
considerably more inconvenient to have to use fdisk to set the active
partition every time than to just pick one or let it time out. There’s
nothing to stop you from changing the active partition to have a different
default. I guess I’m not really seeing why having the choice is a bad
thing. Perhaps an ‘expert mode’ or something to get this behaviour?

Kris

There is a loader out there, that does this very well.
It presents a boot prompt and then waits a configurable time-out, which
can be anything from none, to forever. If a particular key is pressed, it
presents a choice from all of the bootable configurations it knows about.
A recent version, provides an option whereby the last configuration chosen,
remains the default, “locked” if you will, until some other choice is
deliberately made. It’s configurable as to whether this new choice auto
magicly becomes the new default, or not. It does not require a bootable
flag on any partition ( none of mine are set active ), but can boot anything
it knows about ( compiled in at install time ). It lives in the MBR.
Most of its functions are not unlike the WinNT first stage loader, but are
more configurable, therefore more flexible. It doesn’t depend on any
.diskroot file existing in the “root” partition, nor a pkg directory, but
simply loads a chosen bootimage file, which then takes care of all the rest.

I find this particularly advantageous, as it permits easily rebooting from
one system to another, without being forced to user-interact with the
system, though boot time choices are possible if gotten before the configured
time outs, or simply powering-up and walking away, returning when the
system has finished loading, and running all of it’s initialization scripts.

Presently, this loader works for me very well, with the exception of QNXRTP.
QNXRTP requires me to either rename the .diskroot files in backups so that
they won’t present a choice, or to interact with the QNX loader every time.
This then requires me to rename the .diskroot files in order TO boot a
backup, even when booting from CD.

Something presenting both ways, choice of systems for the developer, or
not for the general purpose user, would certainly be desirable.

Cheers…


Cowboy

Scientists were preparing an experiment to ask the ultimate question.
They had worked for months gathering one each of every computer that was
built. Finally the big day was at hand. All the computers were linked
together. They asked the question, “Is there a God?”. Lights started
blinking, flashing and blinking some more. Suddenly, there was a loud
crash, and a bolt of lightning came down from the sky, struck the
computers, and welded all the connections permanently together. “There
is now”, came the reply.