RE : [lwip-devel] [bug #19206] the ARP layer is notprotectedagainstconcurrent access

[Frédéric BERNON]

First draft patch. Any comments?
 
  
====================================
Frédéric BERNON 
HYMATOM SA 
Chef de projet informatique 
Microsoft Certified Professional 
Tél. : +33 (0)4-67-87-61-10 
Fax. : +33 (0)4-67-70-85-44 
Email : address@hidden 
Web Site : http://www.hymatom.fr 
====================================
P Avant d'imprimer, penser à l'environnement
 


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Frédéric BERNON 
Envoyé : lundi 5 mars 2007 16:25
À : 'Kieran Mansley'
Cc : 'Simon Goldschmidt'; Frédéric BERNON
Objet : RE : RE : [lwip-devel] [bug #19206] the ARP layer is 
notprotectedagainstconcurrent access


It will increase the footprint, but ok, I do it like this... 
  
====================================
Frédéric BERNON 
HYMATOM SA 
Chef de projet informatique 
Microsoft Certified Professional 
Tél. : +33 (0)4-67-87-61-10 
Fax. : +33 (0)4-67-70-85-44 
Email : address@hidden 
Web Site : http://www.hymatom.fr 
====================================
P Avant d'imprimer, penser à l'environnement
 


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Kieran Mansley [mailto:address@hidden 
Envoyé : lundi 5 mars 2007 16:22
À : Frédéric BERNON
Cc : Simon Goldschmidt
Objet : Re: RE : [lwip-devel] [bug #19206] the ARP layer is 
notprotectedagainstconcurrent access


On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 16:19 +0100, Frédéric BERNON wrote:
> (I write you directly because my email change (address@hidden ->
> address@hidden) isn't updated on Savannah servers...)
> 
> Perhaps do you prefer I set the TCPIP_PACKET_INPUT to 0 as default
> value? With that, old drivers won't have to change their behavior, but 
> they still have this problem with ARP (and I don't think it's a good 
> thing)... It seems better than add a new message, which finally do the 
> same thing : send "packets" from driver to tcpip_thread...

I'm not sure what TCPIP_PACKET_INPUT refers to - I've lost the beginning of the 
discussion, but I'd like to see the problem fixed by default, even if that 
means existing drivers will need updating.

> Tell me if you prefer that solution (TCPIP_PACKET_INPUT to 0 as
> default value), or if you prefer TCPIP_MSG_ETHINPUT. If you choose 
> last, do you want an exclusive feature - at build time - between 
> TCPIP_MSG_ETHINPUT and TCPIP_MSG_INPUT?

I don't think we need to have a compile time switch - I can see that a driver 
may wish to use both.

Kieran

Frédéric BERNON.vcf
Description: Frédéric BERNON.vcf

arp.patch
Description: arp.patch