ok, this is also consistent with rtems_scheduler_ident_by_processor_set()
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:27 AM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
> In case the processor set is not large enough to contain the processor
> set owned by the scheduler return RTEMS_INVALID_SIZE instead of
> RTEMS_INVALID_NUMBER. This is more in line with other directives since
> the issue is related to the size of an object.
>
> Close #4401.
> ---
> cpukit/rtems/src/schedulergetprocessorset.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/cpukit/rtems/src/schedulergetprocessorset.c
> b/cpukit/rtems/src/schedulergetprocessorset.c
> index 6027ab31a2..71a351528a 100644
> --- a/cpukit/rtems/src/schedulergetprocessorset.c
> +++ b/cpukit/rtems/src/schedulergetprocessorset.c
> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ rtems_status_code rtems_scheduler_get_processor_set(
> processor_set = _Scheduler_Get_processors( scheduler );
> status = _Processor_mask_To_cpu_set_t( processor_set, cpusetsize, cpuset );
> if ( status != PROCESSOR_MASK_COPY_LOSSLESS ) {
> - return RTEMS_INVALID_NUMBER;
> + return RTEMS_INVALID_SIZE;
> }
>
> return RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL;
> --
> 2.26.2
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel@rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
