Re: [lwip-users] CORE_LOCKING

[timmy brolin]

Yes, people most certainly use more than one of those APIs in the same project.
tcpip_input is used by everyone, obviously.
It also makes sense to use both netconn and netifapi in the same project.

Getting CORE_LOCKING working reliably on all interfaces, and get rid of the message passing altogether, would be great. I can't agree more.
But there is lots of work to be done on CORE_LOCKING in the socket interface, and there has been almost no progress at all made on CORE_LOCKING for years..
I think that the consesus some time back was that it would be best to write a completely new socket implementation with CORE_LOCKING, rather than adapt the current socket implementation.

I think that code which is not used, will not be improved/maintained very well either.
By making the CORE_LOCKING option individually configurable on a API basis, people can start using CORE_LOCKING on those APIs where it already is in decent shape.

Regards,
Timmy Brolin

<-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->

From: Kieran Mansley address@hidden Sent: 14/7/2011 12:06:06 PM To: address@hidden Subject: Re: [lwip-users] CORE_LOCKING  On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 00:23 -0700, timmy brolin wrote: > Perhaps it would make sense to enable CORE_LOCKING individually on > those for interfaces? > That way CORE_LOCKING can be enabled for lets say tcpip_input and > netifapi, while still keeping the message passing in netconn and > socket. Do people typically use more than one of those APIs in the same project? I would rather get it working reliably on all interfaces, than increase complexity further by allowing its use selectively. Kieran _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list address@hidden https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users .

_______________________________________________________________
Hitta ditt drömjobb - Turism Försäljning Vårdjobb Ekonomi Design Bank Media