From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5367F922.6070808@xenomai.org> Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 22:48:34 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <531A29CC.4040201@xenomai.org> <533FF394.1020405@xenomai.org> <535A3B92.5070206@siemens.com> <535A4E5F.9060109@xenomai.org> <535FC7A8.3060508@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <535FC7A8.3060508@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] RTDM rework (2) List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Xenomai 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.