Re: [lwip-users] socket changes and lightweight protection

[Ed Sutter]

David,
A suggestion (in case you hadn't already considered this)...
The sys_arch_protect() and unprotect() functions should be
able to deal with nesting...

   pval = sys_arch_protect();
       pval = sys_arch_protect();
       sys_arch_unprotect(pval);   <<--- should not cause an unprotect
   sys_arch_unprotect(pval);

Agree?  It's similar to uC/OS's critical section type 3.
Ed

David Haas wrote:
> 
> I have been meaning to integrate the select() code into the source tree,
> but last week I was very busy on a different project :-( .
> 
> If it is OK with everybody, I will work on integrating all these socket
> changes and hope to have it done in a day or two. I will do some
> (limited) testing before I check it in.
> 
> Also, I had put in some lightweight protection into pbuf and memp code
> (in a patch) which disabled interrupts. Several people commented on this
> and thought that we should not be disabling interrupts. I agree that on
> many systems this is undesirable. So how about a sys_arch_protect() and
> sys_arch_unprotect(). This can then be implemented differently on
> different systems.
> 
> Any comments???
> 
> David.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lwip-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users

els.vcf
Description: Card for Ed Sutter