+1 Best Alin ________________________________ Från: Lee, Lup Yuen <lu...@appkaki.com> Skickat: den 14 april 2025 15:53 Till: dev@nuttx.apache.org <dev@nuttx.apache.org> Ämne: Re: Vote for using system dd instead of nsh dd, avoid duplicate code
+1 Hi Donny: Please remember to close the voting in 72 hours. Thanks :-) Lup On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 9: 07 PM 董九柱 <dongjiuzhu0705@ gmail. com> wrote: > Hello Community, > > I submit some PRs about using system/dd app instead of dd +1 Hi Donny: Please remember to close the voting in 72 hours. Thanks :-) Lup On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 9:07 PM 董九柱 <dongjiuzhu0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Community, > > I submit some PRs about using system/dd app instead of dd command from > nshlib. > > PR link: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3057__;!!O7_YSHcmd9jp3hj_4dEAcyQ!2eBUrH98rX0tl8JvPrPE37DeNTU5GBbP8XSJonhrf_g5h2StfwhSHTlMwUEzhJvT1cxEIPNktq1ggT0$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16198__;!!O7_YSHcmd9jp3hj_4dEAcyQ!2eBUrH98rX0tl8JvPrPE37DeNTU5GBbP8XSJonhrf_g5h2StfwhSHTlMwUEzhJvT1cxEIPNkz7GKyqI$ > > Why do? > There are two implementations of dd in the current system, one under nshlib > and the other under system/dd. > we need to remove one to avoid duplication code and function lost. The > discuss: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3048__;!!O7_YSHcmd9jp3hj_4dEAcyQ!2eBUrH98rX0tl8JvPrPE37DeNTU5GBbP8XSJonhrf_g5h2StfwhSHTlMwUEzhJvT1cxEIPNkXPgv_zE$ > From the current perspective, the system "dd" is a better choice, as it > allows for the separate configuration of its corresponding stack and > compilation into an independent wasm module. > > How do? > 1. Align the functionality of "dd" in nshlib with that in the system "dd" > to ensure consistent functionality. > 2. Remove implement of dd in nshlib, include > config(CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_DD、NSH_CMDOPT_DD_STATS) and > file(nshlib/nsh_ddcmd.c) > 3. Adjust all board configurations to ensure backward and forward > compatibility. > > So I need your vote here: > If you accept the breaking PR, please reply with +1. > If you reject the PR, please reply with -1. > > BRs, >
