We generally shouldn't be hijacking CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS, etc as a means to
append flags to the targets, since this adds the compilation flags to
everything, including our externals, which can result in weird issues
and makes the build hierarchy fragile.
Instead, we want to just apply these compilation flags to our targets,
and let those managing external libraries to properly specify their
compilation flags.
This also results in us not getting as many warnings, as we don't raise
the warning level on every external target.
We really don't need to pull in several headers of boost related
machinery just to perform the erase-remove idiom (particularly with
C++20 around the corner, which adds universal container std::erase and
std::erase_if, which we can just use instead).
With this, we don't need to link in anything boost-related into common.
Rather than make a global accessor for this sort of thing. We can make
it a part of the thread interface itself. This allows getting rid of a
hidden global accessor in the kernel code.
This condition was checking against the nominal thread priority, whereas
the kernel itself checks against the current priority instead. We were
also assigning the nominal priority, when we should be assigning
current_priority, which takes priority inheritance into account.
This can lead to the incorrect priority being assigned to a thread.
Given we recursively update the relevant threads, we don't need to go
through the whole mutex waiter list. This matches what the kernel does
as well (only accessing the first entry within the waiting list).
Makes it an instantiable class like it is in the actual kernel. This
will also allow removing reliance on global accessors in a following
change, now that we can encapsulate a reference to the system instance
in the class.
Within the kernel, shared memory and transfer memory facilities exist as
completely different kernel objects. They also have different validity
checking as well. Therefore, we shouldn't be treating the two as the
same kind of memory.
They also differ in terms of their behavioral aspect as well. Shared
memory is intended for sharing memory between processes, while transfer
memory is intended to be for transferring memory to other processes.
This breaks out the handling for transfer memory into its own class and
treats it as its own kernel object. This is also important when we
consider resource limits as well. Particularly because transfer memory
is limited by the resource limit value set for it.
While we currently don't handle resource limit testing against objects
yet (but we do allow setting them), this will make implementing that
behavior much easier in the future, as we don't need to distinguish
between shared memory and transfer memory allocations in the same place.
Lioncash
bunnei
liushuyu
ReinUsesLisp