Hi, We can't really merge the back-ported code with the current libbsd version to avoid version inconsistency. Thus, i am proposing to prepare all the necessary changes(patches), which can be applied once the libbsd receives it's next update.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > I have a question about the high-level goal of this project. Is it to > produce a back-ported version of the stack to our current libbsd, or > is to prepare the changes necessary to apply to libbsd when it gets > updated to a newer FreeBSD containing the sdio stack, or both? > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Udit agarwal <dev.mada...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 8:48 PM, Christian Mauderer <l...@c-mauderer.de> > > wrote: > >> > >> Am 18.03.2018 um 14:22 schrieb Udit agarwal: > >> > Hi all, > >> > Here's the link to my proposal: > >> > > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Ut9FLAV3Y0Up1Qn02ys6KAb2QhtR > eF_P-wNR861NMo/edit?usp=sharing > >> > > >> > Please have a look, and comment where ever needed. > >> > I tried my best to make time-line as realistic as possible. Please > feel > >> > free to comment in case of any unbalance or overlooked task. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Udit agarwal > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Hello Udit, > >> > >> some (not too well sorted) notes: > >> > >> 1. One point I'm missing is the target that you produce a set of patches > >> that can be easily merged as soon as the libbsd receives it's next > >> update. Otherwise the only result from that project would be the > >> comparison document. > >> > > That's a really good idea! I have now included that in my proposal, > please > > have a look. > >> > >> > >> 2. I'm not sure whether the point > >> > >> "Backport the SDIO driver residing within the mmccam stack to FreeBSD > >> version being used by libbsd" > >> > >> is a good idea. It sounds like you want to do the backport on FreeBSD. > >> You most likely would have a lot of work with that without any really > >> useful results. It would be better to analyse whether some other > >> subsystems might have an influence on the performance measurement (which > >> I would expect to be quite few) and then do the backport directly on > >> RTEMS libbsd. > >> > > Noted. I have corrected this. Moreover, i am studying several files > > changed/modified during > > the mmccam commit and as of now, i didn't came across any such Non-RTEMS > > dependency > > that might affect systems performance. I have a query here, in > RTEMS-libbsd > > cam directory, there are some files > > like cam.h and cam_ccb.h belonging to different FreeBSD head versions. > Is it > > because, since there has been no change in the file, so its not updated? > >> > >> > >> 3. It seems that you have split up the test bench over all three phases. > >> It might would be more efficient to search a test bench and get it > >> running on FreeBSD as well as on RTEMS quite early. There should be no > >> difference whether it runs on the old SD-card driver, the SDIO one or > >> some USB stick. It should basically work with with any block device. > >> > >> If you start to port it to RTEMS in phase 3 and then find out that it > >> doesn't work like expected, you will have to restart with searching some > >> other test bench. This would mean that you can throw away all results of > >> the workbench that you collected in between. > >> > > I have corrected this. So, now the first phase, I'll be porting SDIO > driver, > > and in the second and third phase, I'll focus on the benchmarking task. > > Hopefully, now we have ample time to fallback and search for another > > benchmarks in case the first one didn't work expectedly. > >> > >> > >> 4. I'm not quite sure whether the amount of work would really fill all > >> three phases. Maybe you should plan an extended goal. With that topic > >> that could for example be a benchmark for some other drivers (like USB > >> storage). > >> > > Done. > >> > >> > >> 5. Currently your results are a document and a set of patches that > >> (hopefully) can be integrated into libbsd in the future. I think that if > >> you find some good standard performance test for block devices, porting > >> that could be another core result that can be integrated directly and > >> not only after a libbsd upgrade. > >> > > I came across several popular, multipurpose I/O benchmarks like IOZone > and > > IOrate with compatible license(1,2). Since, these are FreeBSD compatible > > probably they will work. Still, I have added 'Searching and testing > > benchmarks on FreeBSD' as one of my goal. > >> > >> With kind regards > >> > >> Christian Mauderer > > > > > > Regards, > > Udit agarwal > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
