[PATCH 00/11] Generate some header files

Chris Johns chrisj at rtems.org
Wed Nov 11 21:37:03 UTC 2020

On 11/11/20 5:51 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 11/11/2020 01:18, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 10/11/20 5:41 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2020 00:05, Chris Johns wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/20 1:49 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>>> This patch set replaces some hand written header files of the Classic
>>>>> API with header files generated from specification items.  The main
>>>>> parts are the Event Manager and the Partition Manager.  The patches for
>>>>> the RTEMS Classic API Guide of these two managers is available here:
>>>>> https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-November/063122.html
>>>>> I tried to follow the updated Doxygen guidelines:
>>>>> https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-November/063119.html
>>>>> Sebastian Huber (11):
>>>>>     rtems: Include missing header file
>>>>>     rtems: Generate <rtems/config.h>
>>>>>     rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/config.h>
>>>>>     rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/status.h>
>>>>>     rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/modes.h>
>>>>>     rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/options.h>
>>>>>     rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/types.h>
>>>>>     rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/attr.h>
>>>>>     rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/event.h>
>>>>>     rtems: Generate <rtems/rtems/part.h>
>>>>>     rtems: Generate <rtems/score/basedefs.h>
>>>> Do these files need something that indicates they are generated and part of the
>>>> RTEMS Quality Process (RQP?)?
>>>> I could not see anything.
>>> All the generated files have the standard header and the generated by comments
>>> or do you mean something else?
>> I was thinking of something like the recent change to the documentation source:
>> /*
>>   * This file is part of the RTEMS quality process and was automatically
>>   * generated. If you find something that needs to be fixed or changed
>>   * please post a report or patch to an RTEMS mailing list or raise a bug
>>   * report.
>>   */
>> I do not think we need the links as someone wanting to change an API header file
>> should know there are mailing lists and a bug reporting system.
> I would keep the links. It is not a lot of text. The header files contain the
> directive documentation which is also in the manuals. So, every user reviewing
> the API header file has a chance to fix typos, suggest a better wording, or
> otherwise improve the documentation.

Sounds great to me. If you think the links are fine and are not a distraction
then I am also fine with them being there.

As an aside, are the links from one location in rtems-central? The link itself
may need to be changed and the sources regenerated.


More information about the devel mailing list