[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE : [lwip-users] "the ARP layer is not protected againstconcurrentacces
From: |
Frédéric BERNON |
Subject: |
RE : [lwip-users] "the ARP layer is not protected againstconcurrentaccess" |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:48:03 +0100 |
>The solution which Frédéric proposed is simpler, but sends ALL packets to the
>tcpip_thread. Filtering them before passing on seemed more performant to me.
Yes, I've got the same idea yesterday :) Even if on a "classic" network, most
of packets are IP & ARP, there is some others packets for STP or other Ethernet
level protocols (in my network, there is something like 120 devices, and, in 5
sec, there is something like 15 "low-level" packets).
This is always the same problem : more code in "receive" thread (so footprint
increase), to save processor time. I don't think this this a problem, and I can
propose a "clean" patch if Simon is ok with this solution...
Simon?
====================================
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 : address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden De la part de Goldschmidt Simon
Envoyé : lundi 5 mars 2007 10:30
À : Mailing list for lwIP users
Objet : RE: [lwip-users] "the ARP layer is not protected
againstconcurrentaccess"
Hi,
> Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. I'm slightly
> concerned by you saying that the tcpip_input() function
> wouldn't be needed anymore.
> Can you explain why?
That statement was only be true for 'new' drivers: they would call
tcpip_input_w_arp() for IP packets and tcpip_arp_input() for ARP packets;
tcpip_input() (without ARP) could only be used by old drivers. I wouldn't
remove it, only not use it for new drivers (IF we want the two mechanisms to
coexist; but I guess we have to in order to support ppp?). The solution which
Frédéric proposed is simpler, but sends ALL packets to the tcpip_thread.
Filtering them before passing on seemed more performant to me.
>
> > AS far as I know (but I'm not using it by now), that
> wouldn't affect
> > raw API programs running without an OS, since they don't
> use messages,
> > anyway. This would simply be a matter of assigning another input
> > function for netifs (and maybe another input function, e.g. netif-
> > >arp_input()).
>
> Any raw API users/experts care to comment on this aspect?
> Would be nice if we could come up with a simple solution that
> addressed this problem for all APIs.
That's definitively what I want, too. And I started using the raw API to test
this, but I cannot guarantee to see everything that matters since I'm only
beginning to use this. So, comments are still welcome!
Simon.
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
address@hidden http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Frédéric BERNON.vcf
Description: Frédéric BERNON.vcf
- RE : [lwip-users] "the ARP layer is not protected againstconcurrentaccess",
Frédéric BERNON <=