mvousden
commented
4 years ago Can we merge development into nameserver, so that the review only displays the changes you've made (as opposed all the changes that have been made since ca8bbaf)? i.e.:
git pull
git checkout nameserver
git merge development
... # resolve merge conflicts, potentially with some help
... # resolve changes introduced from renaming TMoth.{h,cpp} -> Mothership.{h,cpp}, potentially with some help
git commit
git pushIf you're not confortable to do this, we can do this together, or explore other avenues. As it stands, it's difficult for me (as a reviewer) to see only the changes that you have introduced.
I'm around this afternoon (from about 1530).
heliosfa
AlexRast
This adds the NameServer process and makes the Mothership inherit from SBase. Now that Mothership officially inherits from its expected base classes, its class files are given the 'proper' Mothership.h and Mothership.cpp names. I think Ns_el.h and Ns_el.cpp are probably not needed but I have not changed them and so far everything seems to work - tested with some small working examples using both default and application supervisors from heat plate and clock tree, and with some larger (multi-board) examples as well. There is a MothershipDummy class to aid in testing of the NameServer without the full mothership; it can probably eventually be dropped but might still come in handy when testing UserIO in future. I have added a few output messages when loading cores just to give the operator some sense of progress - note how SLOW these are to remind everyone of how valuable a thread safe multi-core/multi-board loader would be! I have manually merged non-conflicting updates to other files from the development branch so although it may show as being any number of commits behind (reflecting the point when the branch was created!) in fact most of the actual files should be up-to-date; of course with significant changes to nameserver, mothership and several related files including the PMsg_p and CMsg_p classes. For now the group of name services that can inject packets into a Tinsel core directly based upon a device name is not implemented, pending implementation of UserIO. But most of the rest of the name services commands are implemented and tested.