[PATCH 1/2] score: Replace priority prepend it with flags

[Chris Johns]

On 11/8/21 3:21 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 10/08/2021 16:50, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 10/08/2021 16:46, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>> This is a good cleanup. The naming seems a bit off to me, but it's all
>>> internal so we can always adjust it later. (I think it should be
>>> singular "Priority_Flag", but really it's not just a flag, it's
>>> something like the "Priority_Discipline" -- I can't think what is the
>>> right word however for how you decide to break ties.) So you can just
>>> leave it be for now and ignore my rambling. :)
>>
>> Thanks for the review. Maybe we have more flags in the future. If not we can
>> still rename it after some time.
> 
> Actually I am not sure if we really need more flags. What about:

This is nicer.

> /**
>  * @brief The priority group flags indicate if the priority should be appended
>  *   or prepended to its priority group.
>  */
> typedef enum {
>   /**
>    * @brief The priority group prepend flag indicates that the priority should
>    *   be prepended to its priority group.

Could this be more direct ....

    * @brief The Priority group prepend option will prepended the priority
        to the priority group.

?

I am not sure `indicates` is the write word.

>    */
>   PRIORITY_GROUP_PREPEND = 0,
> 
>   /**
>    * @brief The priority group append flag indicates that the priority should
>    *   be appended to its priority group.
>    */
>   PRIORITY_GROUP_APPEND = 1
> } Priority_Group;

I am not a fan of adding things like _FLAG because it only describes some of
what the option is so why just have that bit when there could be so much more?
;) For example _FLAG could also be _FLAG_ENUM or _FLAG_DEFINE etc.

Chris