Attention is currently required from: Aarya, Nikolai Artemiev, Sergii Dmytruk.
7 comments:
Commit Message:
The progress doesn't just dump lots of stuff on the screen which
probably won't fly because of CB:64668, but it's not hard to adjust
this.
```suggestion […]
Done
File cli_output.c:
Patch Set #4, Line 119: 16 * FLASHROM_PROGRESS_NR
Just saw that "..." is also printed below which needs to be erased as well.
Maybe this is where your extra 3 chars went! (you said: it will be 13 chars which I rounded to 16). Because, when running, `...` does not multiply, it seems to be erased as well.
File cli_output.c:
Patch Set #7, Line 157: progress_printed = false;
Those extra newlines are quite annoying. I think most of them can be deal with quite easily. […]
Yes that's a good improvement. I re-wrote, and did the same tests with dummy (with normal level of verbosity and -VVV), seems to work.
File libflashrom.c:
Patch Set #7, Line 82: update_progress(flashctx, stage, 0);
Probably worth commenting that this is used to trigger callback invocation.
Done
File realtek_mst_i2c_spi.c:
Patch Set #7, Line 400: RTK_PAGE_SIZE
Looks like this should actually be `page_len`.
Done
File spi25.c:
Patch Set #7, Line 733: chunksize
This should be `towrite`.
Done
File tests/chip.c:
Doesn't look like this can catch progress going backward. […]
Yeah this does not assert anything, just prints for a human to read in the logs.
I meant this test as a starting point, to at least run the code (which is a bit better than just compiling). It checks that there are no segfaults or infinite loops, memory leaks, things like that - but no asserting for logic.
I would do it later (perhaps in the next patch), what do you think?
To view, visit change 84102. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.