On Tue, Mar 9, 2021, 3:28 PM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vi...@rtems.org> wrote:
> Hello, > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 10:03 AM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vi...@rtems.org> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 9:37 AM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 9:48 AM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vi...@rtems.org> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> If no one has any objections, I would like to push the RTEMS patches > to remove libnetworking. > > >> > > >> The patches are in this repo: > > >> https://git.rtems.org/vijay/rtems.git/log/?h=devel-no-libnet > > > > > Hi, > > In this proposed set of patches, I have removed telnetd from RTEMS and > have placed it in the net-legacy repo, it seems like libbsd uses > telnetd as well. Do we want to keep it in RTEMS and remove it from the > legacy net repo? There are checks in for RTEMS_NETWORKING in telnetd, > to add rtems_bsdnet.h, how do we want to deal with that? In the legacy > repo, we can just remove these checks and let them build. > Move it and remove rtems networking conditional. Freezes it with legacy stack. Just my opinion --joel > Best regards, > Vijay > > > > > > > I do not object but this is an impactful thing to do and it would > > > be my preference to get concurrence from multiple core > > > developers. > > > > > Thanks for reviewing! I'll wait for some more comments from other core > > developers before pushing. > > > > Best regards, > > Vijay > > > --joel > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> Vijay > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, 14:48 Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vi...@rtems.org> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 1:24 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 1:16 PM Vijay Kumar Banerjee < > vi...@rtems.org> wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 12:20 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> > wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 1:05 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> > wrote: > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:28 AM Vijay Kumar Banerjee < > vi...@rtems.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > Hi, > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > I have shifted the testsuites and have checked that all the > tests run successfully with pc-qemu. I have also updated the README.waf as > per the review and have fixed formatting according to PEP8. Please review > the repos and let me know if there's something else that needs to be > improved to make it mergeable. > > >>> > > >> > RTEMS: > https://git.rtems.org/vijay/rtems.git/log/?h=devel-no-libnet > > >>> > > >> > rtems-net-legacy: > https://git.rtems.org/vijay/rtems-net-legacy.git/log/?h=main > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > I have also made a patch for rtems-docs to rename > networking to legacy networking: > > >>> > > >> > > https://git.rtems.org/vijay/rtems-docs.git/commit/?id=92b53d211b4d9ad795ef8b2ad1ac0deed5a25f9a > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > This looks good. If it can easily be moved to the bottom of > the list of docs, that would be great. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Great. I'll check it and create a patch for it (Assuming it can > be > > >>> > > done from the docs and doesn't need anything to be done from the > > >>> > > website front end). > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > I haven't added any LICENSE file as I really didn't > understand what we can put in there. I can add the RTEMS LICENSE file from > https://www.rtems.org/license/LICENSE as it was discussed in the list > before. Please let me know what is desirable. > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> I don't think we should have a LICENSE file, instead I think > there > > >>> > > >> should be a section of the README that discusses the licensing > > >>> > > >> situation. > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> The code is licensed under a mix of the rtems.org/LICENSE > and various > > >>> > > >> BSD licenses. That is all that needs to be said, if anything. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > +1 It is what is always has been. > > >>> > > Great, I'll add a section in the README file. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Regarding the README file in general: Is the current text > suitable or > > >>> > > should we add some information like this is the separate rtems > legacy > > >>> > > networking stack etc. ? > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > Add a brief note, and identify where further guidance is located > > >>> > (README.waf, docs.rtems.org) and keep the historical stuff I > suppose, > > >>> > but provide a segue to it. > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, I added it. I'll soon post an announcement to the devel (and > > >>> users) about the separate repo, requesting testing from concerned > > >>> users. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> Do we need to put out a call for anyone to step up to deal > with > > >>> > > >> anything in BSPs? > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > To be completely above board and proper, I think so. please > post to > > >>> > > > both devel@ and users@ that your repo needs testing and that > the > > >>> > > > legacy stack is soon to be removed from the main rtems.git. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > And make it VERY clear that anyone who plans to test, please > > >>> > > > speak up. We can't demand they do it immediately but it would > > >>> > > > be helpful to know someone is going to do it. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Sure, I'll post in user and devel. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Which NIC did you test the PC with? > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > virtio > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > Best regards, > > >>> > > >> > Vijay > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:30 PM Joel Sherrill < > j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 11:49 AM Chris Johns < > chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> On 27/2/21 4:40 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > > >>> > > >> > >> > Hi all, > > >>> > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > >> > Thanks for reviewing > > >>> > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:13 AM Joel Sherrill < > j...@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. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > >> >> + 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. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > >> >> + 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. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > >> >> This is awesome work and much appreciated. > > >>> > > >> > >> >> > > >>> > > >> > >> > Thank you. :) > > >>> > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > >> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:12 AM Gedare Bloom < > ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >>> > > >> > >> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:06 PM Chris Johns < > chr...@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. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> Thanks > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > >> >>>> 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. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> Running manually is fine. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> >>>> 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. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> Thanks for looking, the os.walk is fine. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> >>>> 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? > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> I think it helps but I am not sure what it would > contain. Joel? > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > It would be hard to have a completely accurate one if it > has to account for every BSD file with unique copyright holders a d two vs > three paragraph license > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > Perhaps descriptive contents that says it contains code > under multiple permissive licenses. See the specific files for details. > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > It's good to have one but not worth the effort to do more > than that. > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > >> > >> >>>>> 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. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> Thanks > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> >>>> > > >>> > > >> > >> >>>>> 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? > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> A single ticket for this task is fine. > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > I would say we always build with networking in in the > future. The standard headers are there always. > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > Perhaps ones in telnetd and similar can go away if that > decision is made versus saying it disables common network services. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > >> >>>> Do we have a ticket for this task? > > >>> > > >> > >> >>>> > > >>> > > >> > >> >>> https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3850 > > >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >>> > > >> > >> > Thanks. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> Thanks. > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> Chris > > >>> > > >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > >> >>> 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@rtems.org > > >>> > > >> > >> >>>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > >>> > > >> > >> >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> > > >> > >> >>> devel mailing list > > >>> > > >> > >> >>> devel@rtems.org > > >>> > > >> > >> >>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > >>> > > >> > >> >> > > >>> > > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > > >>> > > >> > >> >> devel mailing list > > >>> > > >> > >> >> devel@rtems.org > > >>> > > >> > >> >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > >>> > > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > > >> > >> > devel mailing list > > >>> > > >> > >> > devel@rtems.org > > >>> > > >> > >> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > >>> > > >> > >> > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel