Does it make sense to have separate methods for the validation of the different cases? I would think the usage would be "err = validate(cpuset *s);" which could be propagated through the return value regardless of the condition?
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com> wrote: > > And in case the error cases are not completely clear, > do a "man pthread_setaffinity_np" on Linux and see > the errors returned. :) > > > On 11/26/2013 1:15 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> FWIW these are likely three separate methods. We may >> need a new handler. So think long term when making >> suggestions. >> >> On 11/26/2013 1:11 PM, Jennifer Averett wrote: >>> I’d like to add a method to the super core to validate >>> >>> a cpuset: >>> >>> 1) Can’t have a cpuset that is sets a cpu greater than the number >>> of cores >>> >>> 2) Can’t have a cpuset that is sets a cpu that is turned off or >>> not running rtems… >>> >>> 3) Can’t have a cpuset with no cpu’s selected. >>> >>> >>> >>> Any suggestions for a method name, location, … ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Jennifer Averett >>> >>> On-Line Applications Research >>> >>> 256-319-2752 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development > joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research > Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 > Support Available (256) 722-9985 > _______________________________________________ > rtems-devel mailing list > rtems-devel@rtems.org > http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
