On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:28:42AM +0200, Aleksander Morgado wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 06:12:41PM +0200, Aleksander Morgado wrote: > >> Allow up to one bidirectional FIFO/file based console in addition to > >> the default stdin/stdout console that is always registered. > >> > >> We avoid opening the FIFO files while parsing the options because the > >> whole logic may block if e.g. trying to open the --stdout FIFO and > >> there is no reader in the other end. So instead, we store the --stdout > >> and --stdin file paths given, and we open both sequentially once all > >> the options have been parsed. This also allows us to validate that at > >> most a single pair of --stdin and --stdout paths has been given. > >> e.g.: > >> term1 $ mkfifo /tmp/bbstdin > >> term1 $ mkfifo /tmp/bbstdout > >> term1 $ ./barebox -I /tmp/bbstdin -O /tmp/bbstdout > >> (blocks until a reader is available in the stdout FIFO) > >> > >> term2 $ cat /tmp/bbstdout & cat > /tmp/bbstdin > >> (starts reader and writer, which triggers barebox to continue) > >> > >> If only one console is activated (CONFIG_CONSOLE_ACTIVATE_ALL=n), the > >> default stdin/stdout console will be preferred instead of the new > >> FIFO/file based, which would need to be activated explicitly later on. > >> e.g.: > >> barebox@barebox sandbox:/ cs1.active=ioe > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Aleksander Morgado <aleksander@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> arch/sandbox/os/common.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > >> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > The first patch is ok and I applied it. Before this patch though I'd like > > to have the attached patch. It merely fixes what we already have: The -I > > and -O options got broken over time, we ended up using the barebox > > malloc pool before it was initialized. > > > > Ah! I see, just moving the 'O' and 'I' parsing to the second getopt > makes it work. I actually knew about the malloc pool being prepared in > between both getopt runs, as my attempts to strdup() the file paths in > the first run didn't succeed, I just didn't realize it was also > affecting the other logic :) > > > So next we have to create a patch for what you want to do: Have an > > option to create a bidirectional console in barebox. Can we have a > > --file-console option that takes two path arguments instead of one, with > > some separator in between? > > > > Well, is this even needed any more? I'm fine having separate in/out > consoles registered, as long as they work. Ah, great, then we're done. I thought your goal was to have a single console in barebox capable of both input and output. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
