----- Am 22. Feb 2018 um 6:06 schrieb Chris Johns chr...@rtems.org: > On 22/02/2018 13:37, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> >>> Architecture-specific names should use an ARCH_ or _Arch prefix and not >>> CPU_ARCH >>> or _CPU_Arch. >>> >>> This >>> >>> CPU_DISABLE_INLINE_ISR_DISABLE_ENABLE >>> >>> is an architecture-specific implementation detail which doesn't propagate to >>> generic files, e.g. rtems/score/isrlevel.h, so it should not be introduced >>> from >>> my point of view. >>> >>> I don't think it is worth to add a rtems/score/paravirt.h for each >>> architecture. >>> The changes introduced by RTEMS_PARAVIRT are too small to justify this. I >>> am >>> also not sure if you can encapsulate this in one header in all cases. >> >> Please don't ignore this. >> > > I felt spreading the RTEMS_PARAVIRT across the code was hiding the reason in > some cases. When I reviewed the v2 patches I felt changes in a specific area > needed more information to aid long term maintenance. For example look at the > ARM thread id register. It is clear what is happening and if that change flows > out to other parts of the system it is clear what is happening if there is a > dependence on that register.
Yes, this is all right, but do we really need a special header file for this? We can do this in one area of cpu.h or cpuimpl.h. One long term goal is to reduce the implementation details visible via <rtems.h> and move more and more stuff into cpuimpl.h. This paravirt.h is a step back under this point of view. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
