Standalone repository for libnetworking stack

Vijay Kumar Banerjee vijay at rtems.org
Fri Feb 26 17:57:29 UTC 2021 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:46 AM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 11:40 AM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vijay at rtems.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:13 AM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Some odd questions that are mostly about making this a self-contained entity with no loose ends.
>> >
>> > + Can the network demos be merged also?
>> >
>> Are we talking about testsuites tests that use legacy networking? If
>> so, then I have already shifted the networking01.exe and will shift
>> other tests using the same approach.
>
>
> No. This is a separate repository at RTEMS.org
>>
>>
>> > + rtems-docs has the Network Users Guide which is legacy only. As a minimum, it needs to be renamed to have Legacy in the title. Better would be to convert it to markdown/asciidoc and just toss it in the legacy repo.
>> >
>> This is a good point! I'll probably just keep it as a README in the
>> net-legacy repo.
>
>
> +1
>
> It is just confusing. I doubt there is anything that applies to libbsd.
>
> But we also need a users guide for libbsd to at least cover the RTEMS specific parts and help with common things. Not part of this task.
>>
>>
>> > + Gaisler needs a poke about the grlib NIC drivers. And Daniel expects it. File a ticket that it is time for them to support libbsd and assign it to him. :)
>> >
>> > I'm ok with Chris' proposal to give notice  Grep'ing for NETWORK_DRIVER_NAME did turn up more files than I expected. Perhaps that is simply a list of driver names and attach functions for a readme in the repo. That's all that should have been in the bsp.h files.
>> >
>> Yes, these are mostly bsp.h files. I'll file a ticket and post to
>> users and devel about it. There are also quite a few with
>> RTEMS_NETWORKING defined.
>
>
> Defined or checked? I wonder what conditionals will be left.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant checked.
>
>
>>
>> > This is awesome work and much appreciated.
>> >
>> Thank you. :)
>
>
> You are welcome.
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:12 AM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> Great!
>>
>> >> > > 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.
>> >> >
>> Sure, I'll rename it and force push.
>>
>> >> > Do the new python files need to pep8 formatted? :)
>> >> > [ https://gitlab.com/ita1024/waf/-/tree/master/playground/pep8 ]
>> >> >
>> pep8 does work for me when used manually but with waf module I'm
>> getting the following error:
>>
>> ```
>>   File "/home/vijay/.local/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pep8.py", line
>> 253, in maximum_line_length
>>     if length > options.max_line_length:
>> AttributeError: 'Values' object has no attribute 'max_line_length'
>> ```
>> This is strange because it looks like an error in the pep8 module itself.
>>
>> I have tried different versions of pep8 and it looks like each version
>> has a different error. I think this needs some work from the waf side
>> to get it working with the new pycodestyle instead of the pep8 module.
>>
>> >> > In bsp_drivers.py is there a waf node way to find the sources rather than
>> >> > python os walk?
>> >> > [ https://waf.io/apidocs/Node.html#waflib.Node.Node.ant_glob ]
>> >> >
>> I gave it a few shots but it didn't quite work out well for me.  I do
>> get the generator from it but for some reason, it's not building. We
>> would also need the list of headers for the install, for which I think
>> os.walk might be needed.
>>
>> Is this a blocker to merging? If so, then I can put more time into it
>> and try to get it working. If you want it as an optimization, maybe we
>> could merge it and file a ticket? I can take more time and fix it
>> later.
>>
>> >> > Should the README reference rtems_waf and all the configure options it supports?
>> >> >
>> This is a good point, The README needs some update for sure. I'll
>> follow the README.waf from other repos and follow the same pattern.
>>
>> >> > Do we need a LICENSE file?
>> >> >
>> Do we?
>>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 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
>> I'll do it along with the README and send it for review.
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > > 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.
>> >> >
>>
>> grep shows this:
>> ```
>> cpukit/libfs/src/ftpfs/tftpDriver.c:#ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> cpukit/libfs/src/ftpfs/tftpDriver.c:#ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> cpukit/libfs/src/ftpfs/tftpDriver.c:#ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> cpukit/libfs/src/ftpfs/tftpDriver.c:#ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> cpukit/telnetd/telnetd.c:#ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> cpukit/telnetd/telnetd.c:#ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> cpukit/ftpd/ftpd.c:#ifndef RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> cpukit/libtest/testbeginend.c:#if RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> cpukit/libtest/testbeginend.c:    " RTEMS_NETWORKING"
>> cpukit/include/rtems/monitor.h:#if defined(RTEMS_NETWORKING)
>> cpukit/include/rtems/shellconfig.h:#if RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> cpukit/include/rtems/shellconfig.h:    #if RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> spec/build/testsuites/samples/pppd.yml:  - RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> spec/build/testsuites/samples/loopback.yml:- RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> spec/build/testsuites/libtests/telnetd01.yml:- RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> spec/build/testsuites/libtests/mghttpd01.yml:  - RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> spec/build/testsuites/libtests/syscall01.yml:- RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> spec/build/testsuites/libtests/networking01.yml:- RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> spec/build/testsuites/libtests/ftp01.yml:- RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> spec/build/bsps/powerpc/motorola_powerpc/objqemunet.yml:  - RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> spec/build/bsps/objnetnosmp.yml:  - RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> spec/build/bsps/riscv/griscv/objnetnosmp.yml:  - RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> testsuites/libtests/record01/init.c:#ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> testsuites/libtests/record01/init.c:#ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> testsuites/libtests/record01/init.c:#ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> testsuites/libtests/record01/init.c:#ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING
>> bsps/powerpc/beatnik/include/bsp.h:#if defined(RTEMS_NETWORKING)
>> bsps/lm32/milkymist/include/bsp.h:#if defined(RTEMS_NETWORKING)
>> bsps/lm32/lm32_evr/include/bsp.h:#if defined(RTEMS_NETWORKING)
>>
>> ```
>> I can already see a small issue from my side. The networking01.yml is
>> there. That will go away, along with some other testsuites yml that
>> I'll shift now. Do we need ticket for the rest?
>>
>> >> > Do we have a ticket for this task?
>> >> >
>> >> https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3850
>> >>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Vijay
>>
>> >> > Thanks
>> >> > Chris
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > devel mailing list
>> >> > devel at rtems.org
>> >> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> devel mailing list
>> >> devel at rtems.org
>> >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > devel mailing list
>> > devel at rtems.org
>> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

More information about the devel mailing list