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

[address@hidden]

Am 16.11.2021 um 19:55 schrieb Simon Goldschmidt:
> On 16.11.2021 19:44, Grant Edwards wrote:
> > 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 No, that comment is outdated and should be deleted by now.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
> >      deletion
> >
> > 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?
>
> Yeah, well, that comment is outdated as well. Turned out that nearly no
> OS supports this, so it got implemented in a different way.
>
> Sorry for all the outdated comments.

I just noticed that the new 2.1.3 release already had those comments
fixed (of course they also have been fixed on the master branch) some
time ago.

Regards,
Simon