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

[Sebastian Huber]

On 31/08/2020 20:10, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> 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.

Ok, Joel, what is your favourite?