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

[Sebastian Huber]

On 31/08/2020 09:39, Chris Johns wrote:

> On 31/8/20 4:43 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes it can but why not take a moment to consider what we could use. :)
>
>> Also both functions return an identifier. You cannot use them
>> with an identifier.
> That implies some knowledge of the API. For us this is apparent.
>
>>> 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.
> This is hard. "With" implies having a config, ie created with it attached to the
> task. What about rtems_task_create_by_config() as a shorten version of
> rtems_task_create_by_means_of_a_config() or even rtems_task_create_using_config()?
So we have currently on the table:

rtems_task_create_by_config()

rtems_message_queue_create_by_config()

vs.

rtems_task_build()

rtems_message_queue_build()

Or long vs. potentially confusing.