Re: [lwip-devel] netif->flags: u8_t -> u16_t ?

[Ivan Delamer]

Cool, I'll expand it then.

BTW, there seem to be some flags that are unused:

NETIF_FLAG_POINTTOPOINT: set by PPP but otherwise un-checked and unused
NETIF_FLAG_DHCP: seems to have been replaced by struct dhcp *dhcp; 
field

should we clean up or leave it?

Also, agree with Simon on IPv6 being optional. Although there has also 
been a request for IPv4 be made optional and I can see use cases for 
this, especially considering 6LowPAN WSNs (which I'm working on right 
now)

Cheers
Ivan


> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:59:24 +0100
> From: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> To: lwip-devel <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] netif->flags: u8_t -> u16_t ?
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> > > I'm finding that all 8 flags in the NETIF interface are taken. I'd
> > > have to expand the flags field to 16 bit.
> > >
> > > Should I do it conditionally (i.e. #if LWIP_IPV6 -> u16_t flags;),
> > > or do we think it's time to increase the size of this field for all
> > > configurations?
> > I don't think adding more ifdef for only one byte of memory is really
> > relevant.
>
> Yep. I can't even remember talking about netif->flags... pbuf size is
> always an issue because of possible cache line alignment requirements,
> but netif should be no problem at all seeing that most users will have
> one or two of these at most...
>
> > Plus, we should already all use IPv6 nowadays, still considering IPv6 
> > as
> > a nice-to-have and not a must-have sounds wrong for me :)
>
> Now that depends a *lot* on your target market. I guess our products
> won't need to support IPv6 for the next five to ten years, simply
> because there would be noone to talk to :-)
>
> Simon