Michael Barabanov wrote:
>
> Stuart Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Michael Barabanov wrote:
> > >
[snip]
> > Hi Michael
> >
> > Yes, that's what I do, and the point I was trying to make is that given
> > that pthread_suspend_np takes no arguments, I can't see any reason to
> > rename the original rtl_task_suspend function. I guess from the point
> > of view of making the naming look consistent it is fair enough, so as
> > long as people understant the _np issue.
> >
>
> I see your point. FYI, rt_task_suspend is present in the RTL v2.
> RTL v2 API is a superset of the original API.
>
> So I still fail to see why "the original NMT/RTAI API" is any simpler
> than RTL v2 API.
Hi Michael,
All I'm trying to say is that the complete POSIX threads API is rather
complex and for newcommers, it is probably easier for them to get their
mind around the original simple API. What I'm worried about is
newcommers getting scared off and giving up. For instance, if you do a
man pthread_attr_init, a whole load of pthread calls show up at the top,
it is possible this may put people.
Regards, Stuart.
--- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/~rtlinux/
