Re: [PATCH] score: Unify

On 26/5/2023 1:38 pm, Andy wrote: > > If you need my reply, I am ok to switch to BSD-2-Clause license.  > Thank you and thank you for letting us know. :) Chris ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify

On 25/5/2023 3:54 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 25.05.23 03:40, Kinsey Moore wrote:> Is there any reason this isn't just > being moved to a shared directory if >> they're all being made identical? > > Initially, they were all identical. We already have a shared implementation > >

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify

On 25/5/2023 3:51 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > On 25.05.23 02:11, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 24/5/2023 11:00 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> All CPU ports use the same file. >>> --- >>>   .../aarch64/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h   |  8 ++--- >>>   .../cpu/arm/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h  

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify

On 25.05.23 03:40, Kinsey Moore wrote:> Is there any reason this isn't just being moved to a shared directory if they're all being made identical? Initially, they were all identical. We already have a shared implementation

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify

On 25.05.23 02:11, Chris Johns wrote: On 24/5/2023 11:00 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: All CPU ports use the same file. --- .../aarch64/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 8 ++--- .../cpu/arm/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 11 +- .../cpu/bfin/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 36

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify

Is there any reason this isn't just being moved to a shared directory if they're all being made identical? On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 7:11 PM Chris Johns wrote: > On 24/5/2023 11:00 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > All CPU ports use the same file. > > > - * Copyright (C) 2020 On-Line Applications

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify

On 24/5/2023 11:00 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > All CPU ports use the same file. > --- > .../aarch64/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 8 ++--- > .../cpu/arm/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 11 +- > .../cpu/bfin/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 36 --- >

[PATCH] score: Unify

All CPU ports use the same file. --- .../aarch64/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 8 ++--- .../cpu/arm/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 11 +- .../cpu/bfin/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 36 --- .../cpu/i386/include/rtems/score/cpuatomic.h | 11 +-

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify CORE mutex seize/surrender

On 28/09/2016 18:38, Pavel Pisa wrote: And even rtems_* API should include mutex operations. It is clear and it is not necessary to complicate documentation then what is allowed and what is not with each semaphore flags combination. I am fine with adding a mutex API to the Classic API. The

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify CORE mutex seize/surrender

Hello Sebastian, On Wednesday 28 of September 2016 11:06:19 Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 28/09/16 10:47, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 28/09/16 10:38, Pavel Pisa wrote: > >> Hello Sebastian and Gedare, > >> > >> I cannot hold myself to not express my opinion there. > >> > >> On Wednesday 28 of

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify CORE mutex seize/surrender

On 28/09/16 10:47, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 28/09/16 10:38, Pavel Pisa wrote: Hello Sebastian and Gedare, I cannot hold myself to not express my opinion there. On Wednesday 28 of September 2016 07:52:51 Sebastian Huber wrote: On 27/09/16 16:59, Gedare Bloom wrote: A mostly unrelated

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify CORE mutex seize/surrender

On 28/09/16 10:38, Pavel Pisa wrote: Hello Sebastian and Gedare, I cannot hold myself to not express my opinion there. On Wednesday 28 of September 2016 07:52:51 Sebastian Huber wrote: On 27/09/16 16:59, Gedare Bloom wrote: A mostly unrelated question: why do we have two different

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify CORE mutex seize/surrender

Hello Sebastian and Gedare, I cannot hold myself to not express my opinion there. On Wednesday 28 of September 2016 07:52:51 Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 27/09/16 16:59, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > A mostly unrelated question: why do we have two different > > _Semaphore_Get functions, one static in

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify CORE mutex seize/surrender

On 27/09/16 16:59, Gedare Bloom wrote: A mostly unrelated question: why do we have two different _Semaphore_Get functions, one static in score/src/semaphore.c and the other inlined from semimpl.h? Yes, this is a bit confusing. One is part of the Classic API, the other is for the

Re: [PATCH] score: Unify CORE mutex seize/surrender

OK. A mostly unrelated question: why do we have two different _Semaphore_Get functions, one static in score/src/semaphore.c and the other inlined from semimpl.h? On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Use the Thread_Control::resource_count

[PATCH] score: Unify CORE mutex seize/surrender

Use the Thread_Control::resource_count for the no protocol mutexes. Merge the no protocol and priority inherit CORE mutex seize/surrender operations. --- cpukit/libnetworking/rtems/rtems_glue.c | 2 + cpukit/posix/src/mutexlocksupp.c | 3 +-

[PATCH] score: Unify pthread and gxx_wrapper once and move to score.

From: Christian Mauderer christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de --- cpukit/libcsupport/src/gxx_wrappers.c | 15 ++-- cpukit/posix/src/pthreadonce.c | 37 ++- cpukit/score/Makefile.am| 2 ++ cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/onceimpl.h |