On 8/28/2012 10:35 AM, John Kasunich wrote:
> I've been following this thread with some interest.  RTAPI was
> designed with the goal of making it relatively simple to add
> new RTOS's as they became available, and I would hope that is
> still true.  In theory, no code other than rtapi itself should
> need to be changed.  However, the build system is another thing
> all together, and I'm sure adding the option to build for RT-PREEMPT
> instead of RTAI or user-space sim mode will be a major task.

Naively perhaps, I've been assuming that the rtapi will continue to be 
our "containment vessel". I hope this remains true.

As an aside, it would be great if someday you would write a piece for 
the wiki about how/why you got involved with EMC and developed the 
rtapi. It's a story that deserves to be told.

> If any significant work is going to be done in RTAPI, the first
> step should be to read rtapi.h, then go grepping through the
> codebase and see what subset of rtapi.h is actually used.  I'm
> 99.94% sure that LCNC does not use RTAPI FIFOs, so they should
> be dropped.  (When I defined RTAPI, I was young and foolish and
> didn't know abouthttp://c2.com/cgi/wiki?YouArentGonnaNeedIt).

Well, I just ran a 'find -exec grep' script on the 2.5.1 sources and got 
the following statistics:

For files with extensions .c, .cc, .h, .hh, .py, or .comp (this last 
because I was a little lazy with the regular expression in the find part 
of the script),

1. the string "rtapi_" occurs in 225 files, 23 of which are in the 
src/rtapi directory.

2. the string "rtapi_fifo" occurs in 9 files, all of which are in the 
src/rtapi directory.

Looks like 99.94% was a conservative estimate.

Regards,
Kent


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Reply via email to