Karthikey Kadati commented on a discussion: 
https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/882#note_138334


Hi @vijay, thanks for the feedback. I have restructured the MR into a 5-commit 
sequence to make the review easier and clear up the licensing questions.

### Breakdown of the updates:

* **History Cleanup**: I separated the original research code into an 'Import' 
commit and put all my RTEMS 7 modernization work into a 'Port' commit.
* **Logic Distinction**: This structure clarifies the update from the original 
2020 logic to the modern `Thread_queue_Context` and SMP locking mechanisms 
required for RTEMS 7.
* **Licensing**: I verified the 2020 research patches were released under the 
MIT license.
* **Compliance**: I have kept the original headers intact and added 
dual-copyrights to satisfy the BSD-2 requirement.
* **Formatting**: I isolated the whitespace and style fixes into their own 
commit to keep functional logic changes distinct.
* **Protocols**: Both FMLP-Short (busy-wait) and FMLP-Long (suspension) 
variants are included.
* **Wait Discipline**: Both variants utilize a FIFO wait-queue discipline as 
required by the protocol to ensure bounded multiprocessor blocking.

The CI is green, and I have verified the implementation using the `spfmlp01` 
and `spfmlp02` suites on the SIS simulator (SPARC/LEON3). Let me know if you 
want me to clarify anything!

### References for the review:
* **Original Research Paper**: [Supporting Multiprocessor Resource 
Synchronization Protocols in RTEMS (2022)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.06366)
* **Original Research Repository**: 
[JJShi92/RTEMS-Resource-Synchronization-Protocols](https://github.com/JJShi92/RTEMS-Resource-Synchronization-Protocols)
* **Original License**: MIT (as stated in Section I of the paper and the GitHub 
repo)

-- 
View it on GitLab: 
https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/882#note_138334
You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.


_______________________________________________
bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/bugs

Reply via email to