On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Sebastian Huber <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2014-04-09 13:35, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >> I do not like the name of this method. It should be something like get >> default >> cpuset. This name is misleading and too close to something that would >> return a >> simple number of cores. > > > What about rtems_scheduler_get_processor_set()? > > We should decide if we use "cpu" or "processor" throughout our code base. > I don't like cpu. it is outdated now because there is no central processor unit in a chip multiprocessor. I prefer processor as a generic term.
> Currently we have: > > rtems_smp_get_current_processor() > rtems_smp_get_processor_count() > rtems_configuration_get_maximum_processors() > > I think we should drop the "smp" and simply use: > > rtems_get_current_processor() > rtems_get_processor_count() > I'm good with this, especially with the effort to unify the API as much as possible for SMP and non-SMP. These functions can have well-defined semantics on non-smp. -Gedare > -- > Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH > > Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany > Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 > Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 > E-Mail : [email protected] > PGP : Public key available on request. > > Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. > > _______________________________________________ > rtems-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
