[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: |
Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:09:04 -0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) |
On 2021-11-17, goldsimon@gmx.de <goldsimon@gmx.de> wrote:
> I just noticed that the new 2.1.3 release already had those comments
> fixed
Is this the wrong web page for 2.1.3 documentation?
https://www.nongnu.org/lwip/2_1_x/group__lwip__opts__netconn.html
The "really alpha" statement and the requirement that mbox_free()
wake up waiting threads is still on that page.
I tried replacing the 2_1_x in the URL with 2.1.3, but that produces a
404.
- [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Grant Edwards, 2021/11/16
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Ajay Bhargav, 2021/11/16
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Simon Goldschmidt, 2021/11/16
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Grant Edwards, 2021/11/16
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Simon Goldschmidt, 2021/11/16
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Grant Edwards, 2021/11/16
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, address@hidden, 2021/11/17
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?,
Grant Edwards <=
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Simon Goldschmidt, 2021/11/17
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Grant Edwards, 2021/11/17