Re: [Xenomai] RTDM rework (2)

[Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>]

On 04/29/2014 05:39 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2014-04-25 14:00, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 04/25/2014 12:40 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2014-04-05 14:14, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>> On 03/07/2014 09:19 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> here comes a second attempt at introducing a file descriptor support for
>>>>> other purposes than RTDM drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> This time, the file descriptors are called rtdm_fd and are part of the
>>>>> RTDM API, but can be used by the POSIX personality. The actual RB-tree
>>>>> where they are stored is part of the xnsys_ppd structure, as this way it
>>>>> can be used by one of the RTDM and POSIX personalities, even if the
>>>>> current process is not bound to the other personality.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have posted the patches to the timerbench, switchtest, rtdm, xddp,
>>>>> iddp and bufp drivers to allow seeing the API changes.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jan,
>>>>
>>>> ping?
>>>>
>>>> I have a pile of code needing to be rebased on these patches, I would
>>>> very much like to get all this merged before it bitrots too much.
>>>
>>> Finally looking into them now. Do you happen to have them in git
>>> somewhere? Or what was the revision they once applied to?
>>
>> Branch for-forge-rtdm-rework in xenomai-gch.git.
> 
> Thanks, worked through this now. I'm fine with the general approach. We
> should prepare it for merge.
> 
> Some minor things I stumbled over while reading:
> 
> - rtdm_context_user_p (I personally still prefer something like
>   "is_user") and rtdm_context_device (to_device?) are apparently public
>   APIs and, thus, need documentation
> - there are still things (arguments, functions etc.) called "context"
>   that are of type rtdm_fd, thus should rather be called "fd", no?

Hi Jan,

I have started cleaning up the patches, however, about the last remark,
do you propose to rename rtdm_private_to_context to rtdm_private_to_fd
for instance? I was thinking that rtdm_fd was the new context, so we
could keep the context everywhere? Keeping the old API names would limit
the need for wrappers.

Regards.

-- 
                                                                Gilles.