[PATCH 8/9] score: Add _Objects_Release_for_get_isr_disable()

[Gedare Bloom]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 05:42 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Sebastian Huber
>> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 06/06/2013 03:41 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I don't understand the name of the function. What do you intend to say
>>>> >>with "Release_for_get_isr_disable"?
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >There are basically two functions to get an object by its identifier:
>>> >
>>> >_Objects_Get()
>>> >_Objects_Get_isr_disable()
>>> >
>>> >For _Objects_Get() we have _Objects_Release() (or _Objects_Put()) or
>>> >_Objects_Release_without_thread_dispatch().
>>> >
>>> >For _Objects_Get_isr_disable() I introduced
>>> >_Objects_Release_for_get_isr_disable() since these functions must be
>>> > used
>>> >pairwise.  This _Objects_Get_isr_disable() is an optimization for
>>> > semaphores
>>> >which doesn't work on SMP.
>>> >
>>
>> Would it be ok/better to call it _Objects_Release_isr_disable()?
>>
>
> I think this name suggests that we do a release and perform an
> ISR_Disable().
>
is it possible to use an argument to differentiate the two cases and
use the same function names (e,g, "_Obects_Get(get_isr_disable=true)
... _Objects_Release(get_isr_was_disabled=true)"?

I just think the name "_Objects_Release_for_get_isr_disable" is not
that good. But, I also don't have good suggestions for a different
name.


>
> --
> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
>
> Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
> Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
> Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
> E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> PGP     : Public key available on request.
>
> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.