net: Initial import of a global packet buffer by miri64 · Pull Request #1638 · RIOT-OS/RIOT

miri64 · 2014-09-05T15:07:48Z

Cleaner alternative to #1129. Queue in #1640

This is basically a static malloc + sugar

miri64 · 2014-09-05T17:21:40Z

cpu/msp430-common/include/cpu-conf.h

To do this we need a board dependent ~~MCU~~ MTU definition. Will be part of a later PR.

Do you mean MTU?

Yes! I was a little bit tired there 😊

You could turn that into a freshly squeezed issue right away.

LudwigKnuepfer · 2014-09-06T05:11:34Z

Up to here, the tools do have nothing else to complain about =)

LudwigKnuepfer · 2014-09-06T05:21:10Z

Their is no "group" defined for this module in the doxygen - is that intentional?
It looks a little odd but I guess it also makes sense somehow..

LudwigKnuepfer · 2014-09-06T05:28:28Z

sys/net/include/pktbuf.h

- * @detail The rational here is to have at least space for 4 full-MTU IPv6 - * packages (2 for incoming, 2 for outgoing; 2 * 2 * 1280 B = 5 KiB) + * @detail The rational here is to have space for at least 4 full-MTU IPv6 + * packages (2 incoming, 2 outgoing; 2 * 2 * 1280 B = 5 KiB)

miri64 · 2014-09-06T12:22:09Z

Addressed @LudwigOrtmann's comments

LudwigKnuepfer · 2014-09-06T13:40:50Z

sys/net/include/pktbuf.h

thread-safe

miri64 · 2014-09-10T00:34:07Z

@LudwigOrtmann do you find more spelling errors, or should I squash so you can ACK? 😉

LudwigKnuepfer · 2014-09-10T11:29:00Z

Sorry, didn't have time for a proper review yet. You may squash nonetheless.

miri64 · 2014-09-10T13:32:55Z

Squashed and "addressed" comment :)

OlegHahm · 2014-09-17T14:56:39Z

~~Why is PKTBUF_SIZE only defined for MSP430?~~

OlegHahm · 2014-09-17T14:59:19Z

sys/net/crosslayer/pktbuf/pktbuf.c

OlegHahm · 2014-10-12T22:10:21Z

sys/net/crosslayer/pktbuf/pktbuf.c

Is this indentation intensional?

miri64 · 2014-10-13T11:05:25Z

Rebased and addressed @OlegHahm's comments

OlegHahm · 2014-10-13T17:25:22Z

pktbuf_tests.test_pktbuf_copy_data_len_too_long (/home/oleg/git/RIOT/tests/unittests/tests-pktbuf/tests-pktbuf.c 219) exp -105 was -12
.
pktbuf_tests.test_pktbuf_copy_data_len_too_long2 (/home/oleg/git/RIOT/tests/unittests/tests-pktbuf/tests-pktbuf.c 228) exp -105 was -12

miri64 · 2014-10-13T20:43:57Z

Fixed

OlegHahm · 2014-10-13T23:11:19Z

Unittests don't fit on MSB-430 platforms.

miri64 · 2014-10-13T23:59:11Z

Even with

make tests-pktbuf test

?

Edit: yes it does, please test it this way, but the buildtests on Travis do not handle this case. ~~I open an issue for that~~ [since travis does not flash this is senseless].

OlegHahm · 2014-10-14T09:44:27Z

Why do we build unittests for all boards if they don't get flashed anyway?

miri64 · 2014-10-14T13:32:34Z

Because there are no boards connected to the Travis ;-)

LudwigKnuepfer · 2014-10-14T13:35:56Z

Coverage?

OlegHahm · 2014-10-14T13:41:10Z

@authmillenon, that's my point - why are we building them?

@LudwigOrtmann: To cover what?

LudwigKnuepfer · 2014-10-14T13:46:58Z

code

LudwigKnuepfer · 2014-10-14T13:47:12Z

architectures

miri64 · 2014-10-14T17:28:37Z

This discussion is OT. What about the review?

OlegHahm · 2014-10-15T21:12:10Z

Sorry, you're right. ACK

miri64 · 2014-10-16T09:53:00Z

Squashed, rebased and waiting for tests to pass

net: Initial import of a global packet buffer

miri64 added network labels Sep 5, 2014

miri64 added this to the Release NEXT MAJOR milestone Sep 5, 2014

miri64 assigned LudwigKnuepfer Sep 5, 2014

miri64 force-pushed the packetbuf2 branch from 7eba460 to 7ec3d5e Compare September 5, 2014 15:11

miri64 mentioned this pull request Sep 5, 2014

sys : net : Packet buffer #1129

Closed

miri64 added the NEEDS SQUASHING label Sep 5, 2014

miri64 reviewed Sep 5, 2014
View reviewed changes

LudwigKnuepfer reviewed Sep 6, 2014
View reviewed changes

sys/net/include/pktbuf.h Outdated

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Member

LudwigKnuepfer Sep 6, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thread-safe

miri64 force-pushed the packetbuf2 branch from d1a0fbf to 8d4358c Compare September 10, 2014 13:32

miri64 assigned OlegHahm and unassigned LudwigKnuepfer Sep 12, 2014

miri64 mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2014

sys: net: Initial import of a UART network interface #1454

Closed

miri64 force-pushed the packetbuf2 branch 2 times, most recently from 89db167 to 6d9b000 Compare September 12, 2014 08:46

OlegHahm reviewed Sep 17, 2014
View reviewed changes

sys/net/crosslayer/pktbuf/pktbuf.c Outdated

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Member

OlegHahm Sep 17, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

DEVELHELP?

OlegHahm reviewed Oct 12, 2014
View reviewed changes

sys/net/crosslayer/pktbuf/pktbuf.c Outdated

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Member

OlegHahm Oct 12, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this indentation intensional?

miri64 force-pushed the packetbuf2 branch from 1803a6d to 1ade022 Compare October 13, 2014 11:05

OlegHahm added the CI: needs squashing Commits in this PR need to be squashed; If set, CI systems will mark this PR as unmergable label Oct 13, 2014

net: Initial import of a global packet buffer

a569f2b

miri64 force-pushed the packetbuf2 branch from f53db65 to a569f2b Compare October 16, 2014 09:52

miri64 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2014

Merge pull request #1638 from authmillenon/packetbuf2

0812d47

net: Initial import of a global packet buffer

miri64 merged commit 0812d47 into RIOT-OS:master Oct 16, 2014

miri64 deleted the packetbuf2 branch October 16, 2014 12:07

OlegHahm removed the CI: needs squashing Commits in this PR need to be squashed; If set, CI systems will mark this PR as unmergable label Oct 16, 2014

Conversation

miri64 commented Sep 5, 2014

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LudwigKnuepfer commented Sep 6, 2014

Uh oh!

LudwigKnuepfer commented Sep 6, 2014

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

miri64 commented Sep 6, 2014

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

miri64 commented Sep 10, 2014

Uh oh!

LudwigKnuepfer commented Sep 10, 2014

Uh oh!

miri64 commented Sep 10, 2014

Uh oh!

OlegHahm commented Sep 17, 2014

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

miri64 commented Oct 13, 2014

Uh oh!

OlegHahm commented Oct 13, 2014

Uh oh!

miri64 commented Oct 13, 2014

Uh oh!

OlegHahm commented Oct 13, 2014

Uh oh!

miri64 commented Oct 13, 2014

Uh oh!

OlegHahm commented Oct 14, 2014

Uh oh!

miri64 commented Oct 14, 2014

Uh oh!

LudwigKnuepfer commented Oct 14, 2014

Uh oh!

OlegHahm commented Oct 14, 2014

Uh oh!

LudwigKnuepfer commented Oct 14, 2014

Uh oh!

LudwigKnuepfer commented Oct 14, 2014

Uh oh!

miri64 commented Oct 14, 2014

Uh oh!

OlegHahm commented Oct 15, 2014

Uh oh!

miri64 commented Oct 16, 2014

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants