On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 4:41 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 6/2/21 8:28 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:54 PM Christian Mauderer <o...@c-mauderer.de > > <mailto:o...@c-mauderer.de>> wrote: > > > > Hello Vijay, > > > > On 05/02/2021 19:41, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I'm currently working on separating the libnetworking stack into > its > > > standalone repository that can be built separately with waf. The > current > > > status of the project is that I have a working rtems-libnetworking > > > repository [1] that builds with waf (hasn't been tested with any > test > > > cases yet). And In my fork of RTEMS I have separated the > libnetworking > > > stack [2]. > > If you have not already done so I suggest you create repos in your > personal area > on dispatch.rtems.org and these will appear on the cgit page. It is a > simple way > to get exposure to the work. > > > Sounds like an interesting work. If I didn't miss an earlier > discussion: > > I think the name might could trigger one. It gives the impression > that > > it is _the_ networking stack to use. But for newer BSPs most of the > time > > libbsd is the better choice. > > > > > > We could make it painful and obvious using something like > > rtems-legacy-networking :) > > .. or rtems-net-legacy ... small, clear and simple. > > > I assume you are also taking all legacy network drivers with you. > > Yes this is a good point. They will have to move as well. I hope this does > not > create links back into BSP specific headers that are not currently being > installed. > > > One random thought is whether this should only build for specific BSPs. > We > > currently can build the stack for nearly all architectures but I don't > think that > > realistically there are BSPs which run it on all architectures. Should > there be > > a whitelist of supported BSPs? > > There are BSPs where the drivers are not in RTEMS because of chip vendor > licensing issues. Why not follow the rtems-libbsd model? >
And by this, what do you mean? Be able to build it even if there are no BSP specific drivers available? > > > And I used "supported" quite loosely. I expect that other than a > > small number of BSPs you can check on simulators, this is not going to > > be heavily tested beyond building. This is not a criticism. I think it is > > just a reality of doing something better than removing it entirely. > > If it is tested when split and then maintained so it builds it should stay > in a > reasonable state. We just need to state clearly our intentions and if > someone > really needs support there are commercial support options. > > > > I need suggestions with the following questions: > > > > > > 1. What to do with the codes in RTEMS outside the libnetworking > stack, > > > which uses the networking library. Libraries for example libpppd > uses > > > libnetworking. Do we want to shift these to the separate > repository for > > > libnetworking or do we want to keep them in RTEMS and use the waf > system > > > to selectively built those when the libnetworking is available in > > > PREFIX. We can add a common header file that #defines > RTEMS_NETWORKING, > > > so that the related codes can be built and used. > > > > I think it depends: > > > > Can they be used with libbsd or only with the legacy stack? > > > > I thought the point of having the network headers in newlib was to enable > > user space networking applications that could build independent of the > > network stack in use. I think these should stay in rtems/ as much as > possible. > > Do we need to audit which pieces are generic networking applications and > which > are tied to libnetworking. For example libbsd has an NFS network client > and so > does the legacy stack. > Probably. If they are in both, move the one in rtems/ to the legacy kit. > > > If they can be used with libbsd: Can they be build without a > networking > > stack? In that case it might would be possible to build them in RTEMS > > and link them later with either libbsd, with libnetworking or (maybe) > > some-when with lwIP. I don't think there is a reason to not build > them > > for any BSP if they can be build without a networking stack. > > > > Yes. This is how it is supposed to work and should with libbsd now. > > This is also my understanding. > > > If they can't be used with libbsd (or another stack) I would suggest > to > > keep them together with the legacy stack in your new libnetworking > > repository. > > > > > > +1 > > +1 > > > > 2. There are a few header files in cpukit/include that are > required by > > > the libnetworking stack. Currently the rtems-libnetworking is > building > > > in sort of a hackish way by using the header file from the RTEMS > source > > > directory. Do we want to add these header files (like tftp.h) and > > > related source files to the libnetworking directory? The other way > to > > > use them would be to install the required headers in the PREFIX > and use > > > them from libnetworking. > > > > If I understand correctly, the headers are not installed? In that > case: > > Who else uses these headers? If no one except for the network stack > > needs them: Move them to your new library. > > > > +1 > > +1 > > > In case of the tftp.h: It seems that this file is installed, isn't > it? > > So why can't you just use it from libnetworking? > > > > Hmm... that appears to be used only by the tftp client filesystem. That > should > > be in libfs/src really. There is also an ftp client filesystem which > also needs to > > move. They SHOULD work independent of the network stack. > > > > Move those files so either stack can use them. > > > > I'm thrilled to see this happening. > > I am as well. Vijay thank you for taking on the task. > > Chris >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
