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

[Gedare Bloom]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:58 AM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I think it is better to be clear and long. I would also suggest maybe:
xxx_create_from_config()

The sense is a little better.

> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel