On Apr 9, 2014 1:06 AM, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > On 2014-04-08 17:09, Jennifer Averett wrote: > > I thought the consensus was that non-smp systems would not > > support affinity methods. > > I don't remember a discussion about this. > > I think it makes it easier for application developers if the don't have to > plaster their code with #ifdef RTEMS_SMP. You should also be able to write > libraries that work with SMP and non-SMP configurations. For this we have to > provide the same ABI. This should be the long term goal.
Ironically this is exactly what we have not done with disable preemption and task variables. > I propose to add a new requirement: > > The non-SMP and SMP RTEMS Classic API should be ABI compatible. > > http://www.rtems.org/wiki/index.php?title=SMP#Requirements So you propose to defer compile errors for task variables to run time? > On Linux you can use the thread affinity functions also on non-SMP systems. For this I do not mind but we did discuss this at the beginning of the implementation. The short circuit logic for non-smp should be in the api level code and the score should have NO code for affinity. Otherwise you impact the minimum profile and this is 100% unacceptable. > -- > 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
