I think there is a grey area here: we say helpers are not part of ODP, but we cannot compile ODP tests and examples w/o them. Can we really consider an implementation to be ODP-compliant w/o those?
An implementation does not have to (should not) re-implement the odp/helper directory. It can be delivered as is (similar to odp/test or odp/example). Helpers can be thought as part of the test suite infrastructure, but pulled to the top level as definitions are generic enough.
For example, tests and examples make heavy use of odph_linux_pthread_* . This is a problem for eg. bare metal environment. I believe that Phil proposed during the call to rename that "execution_unit" or something similar exactly for this reason. But then we also have the problem with odph_linux_process_*, especially for our platform where we could have different images for different process: some for Linux, some for bare metal. Bare metal images cannot run under Linux and vice-versa. If helpers are needed for examples and tests, I would argue they should be as platform-neutral as possible and carefully defined. This is not a problem for protocols headers, but it is for processes management.
ben _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
