patacongo commented on code in PR #6433: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/6433#discussion_r1254818887
########## include/sys/syscall_lookup.h: ########## @@ -33,13 +33,13 @@ SYSCALL_LOOKUP(gettid, 0) SYSCALL_LOOKUP(getppid, 0) #endif -SYSCALL_LOOKUP(sched_getparam, 2) -SYSCALL_LOOKUP(sched_getscheduler, 1) +SYSCALL_LOOKUP(nxsched_get_param, 2) +SYSCALL_LOOKUP(nxsched_get_scheduler, 1) SYSCALL_LOOKUP(sched_lock, 0) Review Comment: > what' rule to add or not add the nx prefix? The idea in the naming was to create a separate (but very similar) namespace for functions that should be called only within the OS (or libc) vs. functions that can be called only from applications. Often the nx* named functions and application interface of the same name differ only in that the application interface performs application related housekeeping like setting the errno value and/or handling cancellation points, neither of which apply within the OS. Then they call the corresponding nx* function to perform the core functionality. Lots of OS internal functions do not begin with nx*. Is that a problem? I don't think so if it impossible to confuse them with user APIs. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
