CCB 20200513 - Approved

CCB 20200513 - reviewed, needs close look at comments

@yammajamma any movement on these requests? Once you resolve the change requests feel free to remove the "not ready" label and add the "redy for CCB" label

@astrogeco I have been busy working on another task, as soon as I am done, I will get these resolved, but that won't be today, unfortunately. There are other updates as well, perhaps we can review them all in the next CCB.

@jphickey requested changes were made.

I had to force push to update to the newer baseline.

@jphickey are we good with these or do you want to bring it back up to the CCB?

@jphickey are we good with these or do you want to bring it back up to the CCB?

I'm fine with it, already marked as approved above.

@skliper , @jphickey I would like to update a part of this test to be able to use OS_MAX_TIMERS value on top of the hard-coded NUMBER_OF_TIMERS value (just like I have done for timer-test.c in PR #490 ). This will allow the test to be functional even if the OS_MAX_TIMERS value is reconfigured. Since the branch I worked on has already been merged in, should I now create a new branch and make the changes there, and create a PR?

@yammajamma yep! Put in a new issue with a high-level design intent and address it in a new branch and PR