| 214 | | |
| | 214 | * '''July 15:''' Seventh Meeting |
| | 215 | * ''Progress:'' |
| | 216 | * Completed stack-sharing mechanism, I will hopefully send the patch today. |
| | 217 | * Started with the implementation of High-level API for stack sharing. |
| | 218 | * ''Goals for this week:'' |
| | 219 | * Complete the implementation of the High-level POSIX APIs. |
| | 220 | * Write a test which demonstrates strict thread-stack isolation and stack-sharing of the isolated stacks. |
| | 221 | * ''Blockers:'' |
| | 222 | * I plane to rectify the patches that I sent before continuing with my implementation and this can take a day or two before |
| | 223 | I get my code perfect |
| | 224 | |
| | 225 | * '''July 22:''' Eighth Meeting |
| | 226 | * ''Progress:'' |
| | 227 | * Completed stack_address naming mechanism. |
| | 228 | * Completed High-level API for stack sharing. |
| | 229 | * Changed the protected stack tracking mechanism, integrated it with thread control block |
| | 230 | and simplified the stack tracking mechanism. |
| | 231 | * ''Blockers:'' |
| | 232 | * While writing tests for stack-isolation and sharing I realized a very major flaw in my implementation. |
| | 233 | * Currently, the translation table for the complete stack-space is set in a single level (i.e. sections), |
| | 234 | this means that the second-level table is not set initially. Now when I try to change the memory entries |
| | 235 | of the alllocated stacks dynamically in page format, it sets invalid entries as the entries were not |
| | 236 | previously set for the second level table |
| | 237 | * ''Goals for this week:'' |
| | 238 | * Resolve the above-mentioned issue. |
| | 239 | * Get feedback on my implementation and make changes accordingly. |
| | 240 | * Complete the test for stack-isolation and sharing by using the high-level APIs |
| | 241 | |
| | 242 | |
![[RTEMS Logo]](/images/logo.png){kind=logo}
