From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <439C654F.9080805@domain.hid> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:43:43 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig535BA8AB6A5F4626CC8BE0CF" Sender: jan.kiszka@domain.hid Subject: [Xenomai-core] Extensible heaps - needed for the future? List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: xenomai-core This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig535BA8AB6A5F4626CC8BE0CF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I noticed that xnhead_extend() is not used at the moment [1], thus the whole extent management is redundent for now. Are there plans to use it in the future? Should we keep this feature? I'm asking as I still have the idea in my head of breaking up the heap service and introducing a generic allocator interface to select different heap allocators at compile time. So, should extensions be an optional feature of an allocator? Jan [1]http://www.rts.uni-hannover.de/xenomai/lxr/ident?v=SVN-trunk;i=xnheap_extend --------------enig535BA8AB6A5F4626CC8BE0CF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDnGVPniDOoMHTA+kRArCjAJwL3aeh7KdFb5lEaZMxzzv/sH6GjwCcCCb7 qfnbWdk38Elrjmanckdm4Zg= =Nlzq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig535BA8AB6A5F4626CC8BE0CF--