Call for GSoC Mentors and Ideas

Hello all, I'm preparing RTEMS Project application to participate in GSoC. This year will be a bit different, with project scopes reduced by 50% to 175hr (and less stipends too), going back to two halves instead of three phases, and also expanding the pool of eligibility to some non-traditional

Re: [PATCH] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

On 29/01/2021 21:08, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 29/01/2021 20:58, dufa...@hda.com wrote: On Jan 29, 2021, at 13:59 , Gedare Bloom wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM Joel Sherrill wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 12:28 PM Sebastian Huber wrote: On 29/01/2021 18:33, Peter Dufault

Re: [PATCH] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

On 29/01/2021 20:58, dufa...@hda.com wrote: On Jan 29, 2021, at 13:59 , Gedare Bloom wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM Joel Sherrill wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 12:28 PM Sebastian Huber wrote: On 29/01/2021 18:33, Peter Dufault wrote: Do not use an enum as a bit field.

Re: [PATCH] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

> On Jan 29, 2021, at 13:59 , Gedare Bloom wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM Joel Sherrill > wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 12:28 PM Sebastian Huber > wrote: > On 29/01/2021 18:33, Peter Dufault wrote: > > >>> Do not use an enum as a bit field. Document the state

Re: [PATCH] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 12:28 PM Sebastian Huber < > sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > >> On 29/01/2021 18:33, Peter Dufault wrote: >> >> >>> Do not use an enum as a bit field. Document the state flags. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Is

Re: [PATCH] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

On 29/01/2021 18:33, Peter Dufault wrote: Do not use an enum as a bit field. Document the state flags. Is this a new style rule that needs to be documented? Into which category would you put this? Language and Compiler? https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/eng/coding-conventions.html

[PATCH v2 2/2] score: Add _Thread_Get_objects_information()

We do not need all the checks if we have a valid indentifier to a thread class object. Using the new _Thread_Get_objects_information() instead of the inline function _Thread_Get_objects_information_by_id() avoids dead code since the identifier in a thread control is always valid and the return

[PATCH v2 1/2] score: Rename _Thread_Get_objects_information()

Rename _Thread_Get_objects_information() in _Thread_Get_objects_information_by_id() to emphasize that this thread method uses an object identifier and not a thread control. --- cpukit/include/rtems/score/objectdata.h | 6 +++--- cpukit/include/rtems/score/threadimpl.h | 14 +-

Re: [PATCH] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

> On Jan 29, 2021, at 11:37 , Gedare Bloom wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:03 AM Sebastian Huber > wrote: > On 29/01/2021 16:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:06 AM Gedare Bloom > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at

Re: [PATCH] score: Add _Thread_Demand_objects_information()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:18 AM wrote: > > > > On Jan 29, 2021, at 10:57 , Sebastian Huber < > sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > > > On 29/01/2021 15:29, dufa...@hda.com wrote: > > > >>> On Jan 28, 2021, at 09:13 , Sebastian Huber< > sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] score: Add _Thread_Demand_objects_information()

> On Jan 29, 2021, at 10:57 , Sebastian Huber > wrote: > > On 29/01/2021 15:29, dufa...@hda.com wrote: > >>> On Jan 28, 2021, at 09:13 , Sebastian >>> Huber wrote: >>> What's the rationale for "Demand"? Is that in use other places? It sounds odd to me, as if you're

Re: [PATCH 11/11] rtems: Mark value as used

rest of these looked fine to me On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:28 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > This fix relates to a Coverity issue (UNUSED_VALUE). > --- > cpukit/rtems/src/semrelease.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git

Re: [PATCH 03/11] bsp/leon3: Fix incompatible function types

Need to fix in riscv/griscv also? On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:28 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > This fix relates to a Coverity issue (PW.INCOMPATIBLE_PARAM). > --- > bsps/sparc/leon3/clock/ckinit.c | 10 ++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4

Re: [PATCH 00/11] Misc Coverity fixes

Just as a curiosity, it would be good to know what the private version picks up that the public one does not. On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:28 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > Not all issues are related to: > > https://scan.coverity.com/projects/rtems > > Some are

Re: [PATCH v2] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

looks good to me, thanks On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 8:59 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > Do not use an enum as a bit field. Document the state flags. > > This fix relates to a Coverity issue (PW.MIXED_ENUM_TYPE). > --- > cpukit/include/rtems/score/thread.h | 57

Re: [PATCH] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:03 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 29/01/2021 16:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:06 AM Gedare Bloom > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 12:24 AM Sebastian Huber > >

Re: [PATCH] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

On 29/01/2021 16:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:06 AM Gedare Bloom > wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 12:24 AM Sebastian Huber mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote: Do not use an enum as a bit field.  Document the state

[PATCH v2] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

Do not use an enum as a bit field. Document the state flags. This fix relates to a Coverity issue (PW.MIXED_ENUM_TYPE). --- cpukit/include/rtems/score/thread.h | 57 - 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/cpukit/include/rtems/score/thread.h

Re: [PATCH] score: Add _Thread_Demand_objects_information()

On 29/01/2021 15:29, dufa...@hda.com wrote: On Jan 28, 2021, at 09:13 , Sebastian Huber wrote: What's the rationale for "Demand"? Is that in use other places? It sounds odd to me, as if you're insisting the function provide something that it might otherwise decide not to. "Get" was

Re: [PATCH] score: Add _Thread_Demand_objects_information()

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:29 AM wrote: > > > > On Jan 28, 2021, at 09:13 , Sebastian Huber < > sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > > >> What's the rationale for "Demand"? Is that in use other places? > >> > >> It sounds odd to me, as if you're insisting the function provide >

Re: [PATCH] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:06 AM Gedare Bloom wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 12:24 AM Sebastian Huber < > sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > >> Do not use an enum as a bit field. Document the state flags. >> > Is this a new style rule that needs to be documented? > >> This fix

Re: [PATCH] score: Use defines for Thread_Life_state

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 12:24 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > Do not use an enum as a bit field. Document the state flags. > > This fix relates to a Coverity issue (PW.MIXED_ENUM_TYPE). > --- > cpukit/include/rtems/score/thread.h | 57

Re: [PATCH] score: Define _Assert() for Coverity

I don't mind it, but if we end up needing to cater to more static analyzers, maybe we'll want to introduce one layer of abstraction in basedefs or something, RTEMS_STATIC_ANALYSIS (__COVERITY__ || __CLANG__ ) just an example that wouldn't work, but something to keep in mind :) On Thu, Jan 28,

Re: [PATCH] score: Add _Thread_Demand_objects_information()

> On Jan 28, 2021, at 09:13 , Sebastian Huber > wrote: > >> What's the rationale for "Demand"? Is that in use other places? >> >> It sounds odd to me, as if you're insisting the function provide something >> that it might otherwise decide not to. > "Get" was already used. This is a "Get"

Re: [PATCH v2] Add model file for Coverity

I tried this and got this error. I have attached the hack I did to see if it helped the modeling. It can't be {} and it can't be just a forward reference. I added a dummy entry. I hope we don't have to duplicate the enums.

Re: [PATCH rtems 0/2] Add Peek Support to libblock and use in dosfs

Any changes except the ones requested by Gedare? Am 22.01.21 um 14:24 schrieb Christian Mauderer: Hello, the first patch allows filesystems to have an influence on the read ahead of libblock. The second one uses it in our FAT implementation during reads. I tested the patches on a SD card

Re: [PATCH] bsps/shared/ofw: Fix coverity reported defects

Hello Niteesh, Am 29.01.21 um 09:58 schrieb Niteesh G. S.: Hello Christian, On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 1:47 PM Christian MAUDERER > wrote: Hello Niteesh, Am 29.01.21 um 07:33 schrieb Niteesh G. S.: > Hello, > >

Re: [PATCH] bsps/shared/ofw: Fix coverity reported defects

Hello Christian, On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 1:47 PM Christian MAUDERER < christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > Hello Niteesh, > > Am 29.01.21 um 07:33 schrieb Niteesh G. S.: > > Hello, > > > > https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-January/064115.html > >

Re: [PATCH] bsps/shared/ofw: Fix coverity reported defects

Hello Niteesh, Am 29.01.21 um 07:33 schrieb Niteesh G. S.: Hello, https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2021-January/064115.html I have fixed defects reported in the above thread except CID 1472595, 1472597