Q: Placement of call to _Priority_bit_map_Handler_initialization()

Gedare Bloom gedare at rtems.org
Tue Nov 20 20:54:31 UTC 2012

I'll have to look at this. On the surface it sounds OK. But I recall
that priority was hard to separate from the scheduler because
synchronization primitives use priority (for inheritance/ceiling
protocols), so we just need to make sure the bit map is the only thing
being initialized there, and that it really is only used by that
scheduler as you say.


On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Joel Sherrill
<joel.sherrill at oarcorp.com> wrote:
> Hi
> During the last class, I noticed that
> _Priority_bit_map_Handler_initialization()
> is called during rtems_initialize_data_structures() but (I think) it is only
> used
> if the configured scheduler uses the priority bit maps. AFAIK this is only
> used by the Deterministic Priority Scheduler.
> In fact, the data associated with the priority bit maps are DECLARED in
> the Deterministic Priority Scheduler init file (schedulerpriority.c).
> Does anyone see a reason not to move the call into the scheduler
> that uses it?
> And separate the data into another file so there isn't a dependency
> introduced if, in the future, another scheduler uses this structure?
> Comments?
> --
> Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
> joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
> Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
> Support Available                (256) 722-9985
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel

More information about the devel mailing list