[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?

From: Grant Edwards
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 18:44:36 -0000 (UTC)
User-agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)

On 2021-11-16, Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 16.11.2021 18:47, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> I've been reading up on netconn/sockets and thread-safety. At
>> https://www.nongnu.org/lwip/2_1_x/group__lwip__opts__netconn.html
>> it says this about the "fullduplex" option:
>>          "ATTENTION: This is currently really alpha!"
>> Is that accurate?
> No, that comment is outdated and should be deleted by now.

Thanks, that's good news. :)

On that same page it says that for the fullduplex option to work...

   sys_mbox_free() has to unblock receive tasks waiting on
   recvmbox/acceptmbox and prevent a task pending on this during/after

Is that really required? I can't see how the freeRTOS port does that,
and AFAICT from reading freeRTOS docs and info, deleting a queue that
has a non-empty wait list is not allowed/undefined.

>From what I've gleaned from the bugtracker, that mbox_free() behavior
might not be needed because a "closing" message is now sent through
the mailbox and the mailbox is not freed until later?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]