On 19/06/17 08:46, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>> I went through the RFC916 and ended up preparing a set of fixes and
>> improvements for the RATP logic in barebox.
>> Let me know what you think.
> As far as I can say the patches look good. It's quite a while since I
> last looked at the RATP code, so I can't really judge. To which extent
> are the patches tested? Have you explicitly tested for the corner cases
> you fix in each patch? You probably have tested against your new
> library. Have you also tested against the python implementation?
I did test against bbremote, and also did several fixes there as well. I
haven't tested against the "ratp filesystem support" feature though, maybe I
should do that as well.
Regarding which corner cases are tested, well, some of them apply to code paths
that I believe wouldn't really apply to barebox right now (e.g. barebox doing
active open at the same time as bbremote doing active open), so that's hard to
test. I could go one by one over each patch and try to provide logs
before/after applying the patch, how about that?
BTW; how would you debug barebox (e.g. get the debug messages generated) while
testing the RATP link over the TTY? Right now I validated the barebox behavior
just by looking at which RATP messages were returned to me.
barebox mailing list