[PATCH 04/17] bsp/arm: Add linker symbol bsp_processor_count
chrisj at rtems.org
Thu Mar 13 00:20:45 UTC 2014
On 4/03/2014 8:47 pm, Ralf Kirchner wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> Yes using "enable SMP" sounds like a nice idea.
> Actually beeing under time pressure I needed a solution which I could
> get up and running quickly and easily. This is the major reason for the
> linker command files solution.
> I am sure the "enable SMP" solution also would be doable but it would
> have cost me time I did not have.
Is there plans to address this ?
My concern is the effect this approach will have on continuous testing
time and when that is active this approach may be rejected. For example
complete testing, which we cannot do, would imply we test all
combinations of options to configure. This is not feasible so we have to
limit ourselves to a subset and in this case each BSP with and without
--enable-smp would be required where a single BSP covers both. My point
being I suspect the testing system's load and performance may have to be
given a higher consideration over your time allocation and budgeting
once it is running and we know the performance and loading.
More information about the devel