>On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Rempel, Cynthia ><cynt6...@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote: >>>________________________________________ >>>From: ged...@gwmail.gwu.edu [ged...@gwmail.gwu.edu] on behalf of Gedare >>>Bloom [ged...@rtems.org] >>>Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:19 AM >>>To: Rempel, Cynthia >>>Cc: Hesham AL-Matary; rtems-devel@rtems.org >>>Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libmm score and stubs >>> >>>On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Rempel, Cynthia >>><cynt6...@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote: >>>> Hi Hesham, >>>> >>>> Thanks for doing the stubs :) >>>> Could you pull all the implementation specific parts of mm.h and mm.inl >>>> into a header called mmimpl.h ? >>>> It would then match the header-style score is heading towards... >>>> If the no_memorymanagement.c is for devices without mm support, could you >>>> have the functions print out a "stub warning/error" message? That way the >>>> user knows not to rely on memory management... >>>> >>>I don't think we should have the stubs do anything in the normal case. >> Why? >We should not add print statements to kernel code. Some users may >prefer to leave the stubs in place despite the lack of functionality. > >Maybe you mean a compile-time warning, which would be fine to add. That sounds perfect :) Thanks!
_______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
