Sebastian, On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 2014-02-12 09:43, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm not quite sure about the _CPU_ interfaces naming convention. I >>> thought in the score the CPU is the "package" and we logically >>> associate 'subpackages' and their methods, like _CPU_Context_xxx(), >>> _CPU_Exception_xxx(), etc. However, I see at least _CPU_atomic_Xxx() >>> violates this, so I don't know what the right way should be by looking >>> at the code. >> >> >> Ok, if we use the rule _Package_name_Sub_package_name_Function_name, then >> we >> should use >> >> _CPU_Counter_Read() >> >> We should also adjust the CPU atomic API. > > > Maybe we should drop the sub-packages. This would lead to > > _CPU_Counter_Read() -> _CPU_Counter_read() > _CPU_Atomic_Compare_exchange_ptr() -> _CPU_Atomic_compare_exchange_ptr() > _CPU_SMP_Get_current_processor() -> _CPU_SMP_get_current_processor > Yes. I think this matches more closely what already exists with the other "CPU_"-related methods. I'm OK with your suggestion, but you should make this suggestion in a separate email thread since the change impacts more than the new Counter API. -Gedare
> > -- > Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH > > Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany > Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 > Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 > E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > PGP : Public key available on request. > > Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
