From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <53686F9C.1020207@siemens.com> Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 07:14:04 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka 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> <5367F922.6070808@xenomai.org> In-Reply-To: <5367F922.6070808@xenomai.org> 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: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: Xenomai On 2014-05-05 22:48, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > 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. We can still keep (undocumented) legacy wrappers for a while, but it would be better to call the new API after what it is really translating. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux