On 6/11/2023 8:27 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 06.11.23 01:14, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 4/11/2023 1:31 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> On 03.11.23 15:08, Joel Sherrill wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 3:58 AM Sebastian Huber >>>> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de >>>> <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The goal of the RTEMS pre-qualification activity #3701 is a specified >>>> and validated subset of RTEMS. For users of the pre-qualified subset >>>> of >>>> RTEMS it is important to not accidentally use not pre-qualified >>>> features. One way to achieve this, is to build only the sources of >>>> the >>>> pre-qualified feature set. This customized build is enabled by the new >>>> build configuration option RTEMS_QUALIFIED. If it is enabled, then >>>> only >>>> the pre-qualified subset of RTEMS is built and installed. >>>> >>>> Building with RTEMS_QUALIFIED enable is currently only supported for >>>> the >>>> sparc/leon3 BSP family. To support an RTEMS_QUALIFIED enabled build, >>>> changes in the CPU port and the BSP are required to only use features >>>> of >>>> the pre-qualified feature set. >>>> >>>> >>>> Where is this documented? >>> You mean a documentation of what needs to be done to create pre-qualified >>> BSP? I >>> don't have it available yet. A good place to add this would be the how-to >>> section in the RTEMS Software Engineering manual. >>> >>>> This is a very large patch. Are you assuming that if "not qualified" is >>>> specified, >>>> then it is in the qualified set? >>> No, the logic is reversed. Everything is built by default. Some parts are >>> only >>> enabled if RTEMS_QUALIFIED is not enabled, for example >>> (spec/build/cpukit/objextra.yml): >>> >>> enabled-by: >>> not: RTEMS_QUALIFIED >> It seems counter intuitive to me. I have no idea about qual work but my >> limited >> understanding is everything is controlled yet this is the inverse of that and >> anything anyone adds will by default be qualified? > > The goal of this patch set is to place each source and header file of RTEMS > into > two buckets, the pre-qualified bucket and the extra bucket. For two buckets > you > need just one option with two values. In the current patch it is > RTEMS_QUALIFIED > enabled or disabled.
I think we should also include in our discussion code contained within this define (or defines) in shared files and how we manage changes to that code? In an ideal world we would not have any need for conditional code however I appreciate this may not be possible or initial achievable. We should however look for approaches that try to avoid this and understand the constraints the define brings. For example can I change code in a qualification or FACE define when I do not know the standards they support? > Since Joel already brought the FACE profile into play, an alternative could be > this approach. Lets assume that we pre-qualified the FACE profile interfaces > of > RTEMS. Use RTEMS_EVERYTHING for the I want everything profile. Use > RTEMS_QUALIFIED for the pre-qualified profile. Use RTEMS_FACE_PROFILE for > interfaces of the FACE profile. If these are profiles I suggest RTEMS_PROFILE_EVERYTHING so RTEMS_PROFILE_.* can find all profiles? > The objects which are not pre-qualified would use this: > > enabled-by: RTEMS_EVERYTHING RTEMS_PROFILE_COMMERCIAL ? RTEMS_PROFILE_INDUSTRIAL ? RTEMS_PROFILE_RTEMS ? ... or something that reflects what we have always shipped? I borrowed those labels from the way parts are classed. I tend to keep away from labels like new, next, everything etc because they quickly date. > > The objects which are pre-qualified would use this: > > enabled-by: > - RTEMS_EVERYTHING > - RTEMS_QUALIFIED Qualified to what? RTEMS_PROFILE_FACE defines something useful and concrete. Is there an equivalent we could use for the work you have been doing? I do not like the use of QUALIFIED as mentioned in my other post in this thread because it implies something the open project should not and that is the code is qualified. We will only provide pre-qualification data packs from the public repos unless that has changed? > The objects which are pre-qualified or in the FACE profile would use this: > > enabled-by: > - RTEMS_EVERYTHING > - RTEMS_QUALIFIED > - RTEMS_FACE_PROFILE The addition of these defines explodes the builds and testing we need to perform for each commit. We need to discuss this some more and look for boundaries that could help limit the builds and testing for each profile. > Of RTEMS_EVERYTHING, RTEMS_QUALIFIED, and RTEMS_FACE_PROFILE exactly one > option > shall be enabled. Yes this makes sense. Should a source file not in a profile be considered an error? Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
