On 5/28/21 2:34 PM, Farhan Ali wrote:
Hi Sean,
Thanks for taking a look. I will add the changes you requested. However a test case might be difficult to add in the automated tests. This problem only happens if there is an asynchronous event ( packet
What do you mean by an "asynchronous event"?
received/Button pressed ) which triggers a run_command API call AND when the user has entered some console commands which have enabled the do_repeat flag. If the do_repeat flag is set AND the command issued via the run_command API is a 'non-repeatable' command (e.g mmc write), the command is ignored.
Ok, so if I understand correctly, this occurs when someone uses a repeatable command which also calls run_command. Perhaps you can trigger this behavior with a python test?
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 4:24 PM Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com mailto:seanga2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Re: [PATCH] common: The do_repeat flag interferes with commands issued via run_command API The tag here should be "hush: ..." The subject should be an action, such as "Clear do_repeat flag after running commands". On 5/27/21 5:24 PM, Farhan Ali wrote: > Must clear the do_repeat flag once it is consumed. What is "it" here? Please add a few more sentences describing why you want to change this. For example, you could note that do_repeat is a file-level variable which is used by get_user_input to signal when a command should be repeated. Though, I wonder why we don't set the flags in the first place...'it' refers to the do_repeat flag.
I found this wording confusing because the flag itself is not really "consumed", per se. Perhaps "used" is a better verb?
> > Signed-off-by: Farhan Ali <farhan.ali@broadcom.com <mailto:farhan.ali@broadcom.com>> > Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org <mailto:sjg@chromium.org>> > Cc: Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com <mailto:seanga2@gmail.com>> > Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk <mailto:rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>> > Cc: Farhan Ali <farhan.ali@broadcom.com <mailto:farhan.ali@broadcom.com>> > Cc: "peng.wang@smartm.com <mailto:peng.wang@smartm.com>" <peng.wang@smartm.com <mailto:peng.wang@smartm.com>> > Cc: Patrick Delaunay <patrick.delaunay@foss.st.com <mailto:patrick.delaunay@foss.st.com>> > > --- > common/cli_hush.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/common/cli_hush.c b/common/cli_hush.c > index 1467ff81b3..1c9adf5683 100644 > --- a/common/cli_hush.c > +++ b/common/cli_hush.c > @@ -1559,6 +1559,11 @@ static int run_pipe_real(struct pipe *pi) > # endif > #endif /* __U_BOOT__ */ > > + /* Clear do_repeat after consumption, avoids conflicts Multi-line comments should start with a blank line. > + * with cmds issued via run_command API > + */ > + do_repeat = 0; > + Can you add a test case for this?So a use case could be as follows: (1) User issues several repeated commands on console. This sets do_repeat flag internally (2) Webserver embedded in main polling loop of uboot detects an image upgrade request (3) Image downloads, about to be written via run_command("mmc write etc.") (4) Since 'mmc write' is a non-repeatable command, issuing it with do_repeat flag set results in command getting ignored (5) Image upgrade fails
--Sean > nextin = 0; > #ifndef __U_BOOT__ > pi->pgrp = -1; >Regards,
Farhan