Standalone repository for libnetworking stack

[Gedare Bloom]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:06 PM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
>
> On 26/2/21 4:49 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote:
> > The stand-alone repository is very close to completion now and I could
> > use the networking01 test with the standalone repo and it successfully
> > runs on pc-qemu.
>
> Fantastic news.
>
> > The following are the links to the branches with the
> > final version of the commits and I would really appreciate a review
> > and suggestions on what else needs to be done (I'm not sending patches
> > as they're big and would hit the devel limit):
>
> I am fine reviewing the changes in the repos.
>
> > RTEMS: https://git.rtems.org/vijay/rtems.git/log/?h=devel-no-libnet
>
> Looks good. The only observation is a bisect will probability break as the
> nfsclient depends on rpc but I am OK with now things are.
>
> I checked rtems_waf and I think it is OK dealing with no networking defined in
> the RTEMS opts header.
>
> > rtems-net-legacy: https://git.rtems.org/vijay/rtems-net-legacy.git/log/?h=main
>
> Would calling lnetwork.py netlegacy.py be a better match for that name? Closer
> to the repo naming.
>
> Do the new python files need to pep8 formatted? :)
> [ https://gitlab.com/ita1024/waf/-/tree/master/playground/pep8 ]
>
> In bsp_drivers.py is there a waf node way to find the sources rather than a
> python os walk?
> [ https://waf.io/apidocs/Node.html#waflib.Node.Node.ant_glob ]
>
> Should the README reference rtems_waf and all the configure options it supports?
>
> Do we need a LICENSE file?
>
> >
> > There are at least two things that need to be done:
> > 1. Shift the tests like mghttpd01 that use the libnetworking stack, to
> > the standalone repo like networking01
>
> OK
>
> > 2. There are still codes that use the #ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING. What do
> > we want to do about those?
>
> How many BSPs/places/areas are we talking about?
>
> Would it be practical to add a cgit link to a ticket and then post an email to
> user and devel stating those interested in BSPs x,y,z to review the ticket? We
> then wait a week and after that the remaining defines are removed.
>
> Do we have a ticket for this task?
>
https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3850

I'll let Vijay answer the rest.

> > Apart from these two points above, do the commits and the standalone
> > repo look OK (close to mergeable)?
>
> For me this is very close and a welcomed change for RTEMS 6. Really nice work.
>
> Thanks
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel