On 06/05/15 02:26, BCG wrote:
On 05/05/2015 11:35 AM, Antti Kantee wrote:
On 05/05/15 15:19, Martin Lucina wrote: I'm a bit unhappy with
"baremetal". It's long and not very
descriptive. At least we'll get rid of the extra "bmk" term, which
is good, but a better term for "baremetal" would be nice to invent.
How about just "metal" ?
It's shorter, but not really better. I was tossing around "hw" in my
head earlier, which is even shorter, but it's still a bad name since
the platform is not only for hardware.
When you say that it is not only for hardware, do you mean that is can
also be used to run in a VM/emulator?
Yes, the "raw hardware cloud platform", or whatever it's called.
If that is the case what about "cpu" ?
(at least it is short to type, and even I know what a CPU is without
needing it explained)
"cpu" is a taken term already. Within each platform we have support for
multiple CPU ISAs (x86, x64, hopefully at least ARM in the very near
future). Various, albeit internal, routines which contain "_cpu_" in
the name signify that they are the variant for a particular ISA. Using
"cpu" is terminology I borrowed from NetBSD, so there's consistency too.
Besides, a platform is more about "how to bootstrap and how to access
I/O resources" than it is about the cpu.
