Please Review GSoC Proposals

Hi Feedback on the current GSoC proposals would be appreciated by the students. Anyone with RTEMS experience should be able to pitch in and make suggestions. It doesn't obligate you to mentor but that would also be appreciated. :) The deadline is close so please try to pitch in. Thanks.

Re: GSOC proposal - Runtime tracing

Hello! >>We should focus on basic functionality and this is interrupt entry/exit and thread switching. This should work out of the box without having to compile RTEMS with specialized configuration options. It should work via a serial line and network (UDP I guess). It should also support SMP

Re: MMU was Re: Contribute to a project under GSOC 2018

Sir, I have researched about the current MMU support available in RTEMS and I have mentioned about it in the proposal. Also as per your guidance, I have omitted the idea of developing memory protection for architectures not having MMU, rather I will give my full focus to developing MMU support

Re: [PATCH 00/11] 4.10 Fix Priority Inheritance Protocol

Hello all, In terms of prioritizing any code review, I think that mainly the new code is in patches 02, 03 (two new test cases), and 10, 11 (the fix). The other commits are back-porting existing test cases from 4.11 or master into 4.10, and deleting any test code that is not relevant to 4.10

[PATCH 11/11] score: add Inherited_priorities priority queue and functions

Adds enqueue, dequeue, requeue, evaluate, and release functions for the thread priority node priority queue of inherited priorities. Add calls to these functions as needed to maintain the priority queue due to blocking, unblocking, and priority changes. Closes #3359. ---

[PATCH 05/11] sptests/spmutex01: refactor and add deadlock test

From: Sebastian Huber --- testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/init.c| 413 ++--- testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/spmutex01.doc | 5 + 2 files changed, 379 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) diff --git a/testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/init.c

[PATCH 10/11] score: replace current and real priority with priority node

Encapsulate the current_priority and real_priority fields of the thread control block with a Thread_Priority_node struct. Propagate modifications throughout the tree where the two fields are directly accessed. Updates #3359. --- cpukit/itron/src/chg_pri.c| 4 ++--

[PATCH 07/11] sptests/spmutex01: strip out deadlock, c11, posix

--- testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/init.c| 265 + testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/spmutex01.doc | 3 - 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 267 deletions(-) diff --git a/testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/init.c b/testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/init.c index 72e458f..c411bc4

[PATCH 09/11] sptests: Add spmutex01 to build

--- testsuites/sptests/Makefile.am | 2 +- testsuites/sptests/configure.ac | 1 + testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/init.c | 13 ++--- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/testsuites/sptests/Makefile.am b/testsuites/sptests/Makefile.am index

[PATCH 06/11] sptests/spmutex01: add tests for lock nesting

From: Sebastian Huber --- testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/init.c | 141 ++-- 1 file changed, 134 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/init.c b/testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/init.c index

[PATCH 02/11] sptests/spsem04: test prio stepdown on sem release

Closes #3263. --- testsuites/sptests/Makefile.am | 2 +- testsuites/sptests/configure.ac| 1 + testsuites/sptests/spsem04/Makefile.am | 19 + testsuites/sptests/spsem04/init.c | 149 + testsuites/sptests/spsem04/spsem04.doc | 13 +++

[PATCH 04/11] score: Test thread priority queue disciplines

From: Sebastian Huber Add test sptests/spmutex01, since no existing uni-processor test covered the thread priority queueing discipline for CORE mutexes. --- testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/Makefile.am | 19 ++ testsuites/sptests/spmutex01/init.c| 269

[PATCH 01/11] sptests: back-port spsem01, spsem02, and spsem03 from 4.11

--- testsuites/sptests/Makefile.am | 2 + testsuites/sptests/configure.ac| 3 + testsuites/sptests/spsem01/Makefile.am | 21 testsuites/sptests/spsem01/init.c | 156 +++ testsuites/sptests/spsem01/spsem01.doc | 19

[PATCH 00/11] 4.10 Fix Priority Inheritance Protocol

This patch series fixes the PIP as described in #3361 to allow for proper step-down of priority under: vertical nesting horizontal nesting lock timeouts, and lock flushing. A few commits backport tests from 4.11 and 5 (master) to the 4.10 branch to demonstrate the broken behavior of PIP.

[PATCH 03/11] sptests/spsem05: another test of prio stepdown on sem release

--- testsuites/sptests/Makefile.am | 2 +- testsuites/sptests/configure.ac| 1 + testsuites/sptests/spsem05/Makefile.am | 19 testsuites/sptests/spsem05/init.c | 165 + testsuites/sptests/spsem05/spsem05.doc | 13 +++

Re: GSOC proposal - Runtime tracing

Hello Vidushi, Sebastian: On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Hello Vidushi, > > the RTEMS Trace Linker is definitely an interesting tool to track down > difficult and specific issues. However, this is a nice to have optional out-of-box

How to build librtemscpu.a and librtemsbsp.a in the future?

Hello, I tried to consolidate the cpukit Makefile.am. This ended up in the following problem. The content of librtemscpu.a depends on the CPU port. This is currently done via a non-standard _SUBDIRS = ../@RTEMS_CPU@ construct. The wrapup/Makefile.am combines several static libraries into

Re: BSP benchmark timer to be replaced with RTEMS counter support?

That clarifies it. Thank you for the quick and specific response! On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:37 PM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 23/03/18 12:47, Amaan Cheval wrote: > > The BSP porting guide[1] includes this warning when talking about the > > benchmark timer

Re: BSP benchmark timer to be replaced with RTEMS counter support?

On 23/03/18 12:47, Amaan Cheval wrote: The BSP porting guide[1] includes this warning when talking about the benchmark timer driver: The Timer Driver is superfluous and should be replaced by the RTEMS counter support. Ask on the mailing list if you plan to write a Timer Driver. We also have

BSP benchmark timer to be replaced with RTEMS counter support?

The BSP porting guide[1] includes this warning when talking about the benchmark timer driver: > The Timer Driver is superfluous and should be replaced by the RTEMS counter support. Ask on the mailing list if you plan to write a Timer Driver. We also have this[2] open ticket about the same issue.

Re: [PATCH] vprintf: Add handler that mutes all output.

> On 23 Mar 2018, at 5:58 pm, Christian Mauderer > wrote: > > Hello Chris, > > I added a small note in libbsd.txt. The rest of the patch is left the > same. If you don't disagree with that, I'll push this slightly adapted > patch in the next few days.

Re: [PATCH] vprintf: Add handler that mutes all output.

Hello Chris, I added a small note in libbsd.txt. The rest of the patch is left the same. If you don't disagree with that, I'll push this slightly adapted patch in the next few days. Best regards Christian ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org

[PATCH v2] vprintf: Add handler that mutes all output.

This adds a vprintf handler that can be used to suppress all outputs of the libbsd. --- libbsd.txt| 24 rtemsbsd/include/rtems/bsd/bsd.h | 9 + rtemsbsd/rtems/rtems-kernel-vprintf.c | 10 ++ 3 files changed, 43

Re: GSOC proposal - Runtime tracing

Hello Vidushi, the RTEMS Trace Linker is definitely an interesting tool to track down difficult and specific issues. However, this is a nice to have optional feature from my point of view. We should focus on basic functionality and this is interrupt entry/exit and thread switching. This