On 11/8/21 3:21 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 10/08/2021 16:50, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> On 10/08/2021 16:46, Gedare Bloom wrote: >>> This is a good cleanup. The naming seems a bit off to me, but it's all >>> internal so we can always adjust it later. (I think it should be >>> singular "Priority_Flag", but really it's not just a flag, it's >>> something like the "Priority_Discipline" -- I can't think what is the >>> right word however for how you decide to break ties.) So you can just >>> leave it be for now and ignore my rambling. :) >> >> Thanks for the review. Maybe we have more flags in the future. If not we can >> still rename it after some time. > > Actually I am not sure if we really need more flags. What about:
This is nicer. > /** > * @brief The priority group flags indicate if the priority should be appended > * or prepended to its priority group. > */ > typedef enum { > /** > * @brief The priority group prepend flag indicates that the priority should > * be prepended to its priority group. Could this be more direct .... * @brief The Priority group prepend option will prepended the priority to the priority group. ? I am not sure `indicates` is the write word. > */ > PRIORITY_GROUP_PREPEND = 0, > > /** > * @brief The priority group append flag indicates that the priority should > * be appended to its priority group. > */ > PRIORITY_GROUP_APPEND = 1 > } Priority_Group; I am not a fan of adding things like _FLAG because it only describes some of what the option is so why just have that bit when there could be so much more? ;) For example _FLAG could also be _FLAG_ENUM or _FLAG_DEFINE etc. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel