Re: [PATCH] common: The do_repeat flag interferes with commands issued via run_command API

[Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com>]

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