Hello Chris,
I checked in now a patch set that doesn't alter existing reports (except
that the MD5 sums of patches are no longer in '(' and ')', now identical
to the source listing). For the XML report I omit the date and Git remotes.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dorni
Hello Nick,
this looks good, except that
On 10/12/14 06:05, Nick Withers wrote:
+ for (pos = response; response + sizeof (response) - pos && (size =
read(ctx->socket, pos, response + sizeof (response) - pos)) > 0; pos += size)
+;
this line is too long and complex. It appears also multi
Hello Nick,
thanks for your patience:
http://git.rtems.org/rtems/commit/?id=9d9c42601ac54a316a5a8656ebc083c401da07e2
I created a ticket also:
https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2215
If you think the error handling should be changed, then please open a
ticket.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brain
On 12/10/14 22:36, Chris Johns wrote:
On 11/12/2014 5:27 am, Alan Cudmore wrote:
Andre,
Thanks for submitting this. I think we need one minor change:
Could you remove the include and the call to init the mcp23008 driver?
After your code is in the tree, I will propose a patch to allow
execution
On 11/12/2014 5:27 am, Alan Cudmore wrote:
Andre,
Thanks for submitting this. I think we need one minor change:
Could you remove the include and the call to init the mcp23008 driver?
After your code is in the tree, I will propose a patch to allow
execution of application specific driver init fun
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Nick Withers wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 16:34 +1100, Nick Withers wrote:
>> On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 08:23 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> >
>> > On 03/12/14 07:07, Nick Withers wrote:
>> >
>> > > Anyone be interested in committing this?
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, 20
On 12/10/2014 8:21 AM, Tom wrote:
>
>
> yes , you are right. I should be more careful
>
Don't feel bad. CodeSonar and Coverity have flagged
multiple places that a NULL appears to be freed but
upon investigation, it was intentional.
It may be nice to note in a comment that it is understood
that po
yes , you are right. I should be more careful
thank you very much
At 2014-12-10 15:45:12, "Sebastian Huber"
wrote:
>The is no bug, since we have
>
> busses[i].name = nmcpy;
> nmcpy = 0;
>
>and a free(NULL) is a nop.
>
>On 10/12/14 07:10, Tom wrote:
>> cpukit/libi2c/libi
This patch addresses gedare's comments regardig coding conventions and a few
other issues.
As to Pavel's concerns on the interrupt handling I currently lack the time to
address them properly, but when possible I and possibly Alan will have a look
at that and on the new I2C framework.
---
c/src/
