Let me make one thing clear so we can quit discussing it. the "have sys cpuset"
macro was a nice thing from us to avoid forcing everyone to update their tools
immediately.
There is no assumption that cpuset is not present long term and we will NOT
provide an alternative internal implementation.
In retrospect, I am beginning to think the effort being nice was wasted because
it seems to have just drawn flak. Apparently it is more acceptable to just
break things now.
--joel
On Feb 21, 2014 1:58 AM, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>
wrote:
On 2014-02-20 21:07, Jennifer Averett wrote:
> +#if __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__ && defined( RTEMS_SMP )
> +const Cpuset_Control *_Cpuset_Handler_default(void);
> +#else
> +#define _Cpuset_Handler_default() do { } while ( 0 )
> +#endif
In case the C library doesn't provide an appropriate <sys/cpuset.h> then we
should provide our own header file. Maybe we should use a special header file
that either uses <sys/cpuset.h> directly or alternatively provides the missing
declarations and functions.
I don't think it makes sense to use a SMP configuration with this API.
--
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
_______________________________________________
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel@rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
