[PATCH 7/7] rtems: Add rtems_task_build()

[Sebastian Huber]

On 31/08/2020 02:34, Chris Johns wrote:

> On 31/8/20 12:49 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 22/08/2020 09:49, Chris Johns wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/8/20 9:51 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>> In contrast to rtems_task_create() this function creates a task with a
>>>> user-provided task storage area.
>>> The name is build but it creates a task? I am wondering about
>>> rtems_task_create_static or something along this line?
>> A function to do a static initialization is a contradiction from my point of
>> view. Static initialization means for me that you statically initialize a data
>> structure and then it is ready to use (it may involve a static constructor).
>>
>> The function builds a task from user-provided (stack, attributes, etc.) and
>> system-provided (thread control block) components.
> Build and create are both verbs which means both contradict the idea of
> something being static. By tradition we assume a function's naming is in the
> run-time context and we do not consider the fact a compiler may optimise the
> operation and prepare the result before the code runs.
Yes, the task creation or building through a function call is not a 
static initialization. This is why I don't like rtems_task_create_static().
>
> I am concerned there maybe doubt about how the calls are to be used if you are
> not familiar with the API and it's history. Do I need to create a task then
> build it before I start it?
Yes, such a confusion is possible, but I think this can be solved by the 
documentation. Also both functions return an identifier. You cannot use 
them with an identifier.
> The call names I proposed both create a task, one is
> static and by default the other is not.

If you really want something with create in it, then I suggest 
rtems_task_create_with_config() and 
rtems_message_queue_create_with_config(). I think these names are a bit 
long.