Hello Sebastian, On Wednesday 28 of September 2016 11:06:19 Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 28/09/16 10:47, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 28/09/16 10:38, Pavel Pisa wrote: > >> Hello Sebastian and Gedare, > >> > >> I cannot hold myself to not express my opinion there. > >> > >> On Wednesday 28 of September 2016 07:52:51 Sebastian Huber wrote: > >>> On 27/09/16 16:59, Gedare Bloom wrote: > >>>> A mostly unrelated question: why do we have two different > >>>> _Semaphore_Get functions, one static in score/src/semaphore.c and the > >>>> other inlined from semimpl.h? > >>> > >>> Yes, this is a bit confusing. One is part of the Classic API, the other > >>> is for the self-contained semaphores. > >> > >> what is the reason to name these self-contained semaphores. > > > > the name "self-contained" is used for objects which work with a user > > supplied storage. For example: > > > > https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=blob;f=newlib > >/libc/sys/rtems/include/sys/lock.h;h=c261adf681e542af945969149f6533248eb06 > >fd6;hb=HEAD > > > > > > In contrast to the Classic and POSIX objects which work with a kernel > > supplied storage which is accessed via the object identifier. > > > > In the context of the Newlib <sys/lock.h> a "semaphore" is a counting > > semaphore. > > In case the name "self-contained" is confusing for this purpose, then I > am happy to replace it with a better alternative.
No, I like self-contained, I have no problem with that. It describes how it works. I have problem with SEMPAHORE part because it associates for me with IPC/inter thread even delivery, producer consumer pattern. Not mutual exclusion of enter to given code. Excuse for confussing specification of the naming note. Best wishes, Pavel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel