patchlwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Patches: patch #5918, memp.c SYS_LIGHTWEIGHT_PROT=0:...

 
 

You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.

patch #5918: memp.c SYS_LIGHTWEIGHT_PROT=0: remove mutex

Submitted by:  Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon>
Submitted on:  Mon 07 May 2007 08:01:23 PM UTC  
 
Category:  None Priority:  5 - Normal
Status:  Done Privacy:  Public
Assigned to:  None Open/Closed:  Closed
Planned Release:  None

( Jump to the original submission)

Wed 16 May 2007 06:42:06 PM UTC, comment #7: 

Closing this as done, the changes are already checked in due to solving bug #19167

Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon>
Project Administrator
Mon 14 May 2007 12:44:25 PM UTC, comment #6: 

I don't know exactly, but my Friday evenning release has worked all the weekend, and this morning, I just have integrate all your last changes. And since, the tcpip_thread crash. The problem is my debugger which is really too slow to help me for this crash. So, I come back on the Friday release, and will integrate one by one the changes... Once I got some other informations, I tell you if it's in my code, or in #17922, #6831 (I just write here because this is always around the "mem" allocators)...

Frédéric Bernon <fbernon>
Project Member
Mon 14 May 2007 12:37:49 PM UTC, comment #5: 

>Uhm, not sure at 100%, but I got a problem with last check in around "mem" allocation.


With memp or mem? PBUF_POOL or all the comments (& little code) I added to mem.c? Maybe that would fit better into bug #17922 or task #6831?

Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon>
Project Administrator
Mon 14 May 2007 12:31:32 PM UTC, comment #4: 

Uhm, not sure at 100%, but I got a problem with last check in around "mem" allocation. I can tell you in the hour (I try the older version)...

Frédéric Bernon <fbernon>
Project Member
Mon 14 May 2007 12:29:00 PM UTC, comment #3: 

:-) OK, that's what I wanted to hear! I'll check it in like that one of these days.

Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon>
Project Administrator
Mon 14 May 2007 12:27:04 PM UTC, comment #2: 

Silence == tacit agreement. :-)

Jonathan Larmour <jifl>
Project Member
Mon 14 May 2007 12:23:03 PM UTC, comment #1: 

Any comments on this? Solving this would also take us a step forward with task #6683...

Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon>
Project Administrator
Mon 07 May 2007 08:01:23 PM UTC, original submission:  

To comply to pbuf.c, we must remove the mutexes from memp.c when SYS_LIGHTWEIGHT_PROT=0. Old bug/patch entries show that mutex protection was there befor lightweight protection and lightweight protection was introduced so that netif drivers can allocate pbufs in interrupt context.

Thus, in my opinion, the mutex is obsolete. If someone still wants protection through a mutex (which I doubt), they can define SYS_ARCH_PROTECT() to do that.

If no protection at all is needed (as in pbuf.c with SYS_ARCH_PROTECT=0), we also don't need mutexes.

Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon>
Project Administrator

 

Attached Files
file #12713:  memp.c_nomutex.patch added by goldsimon (2KiB - text/x-patch)

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -email is unavailable- added by fbernon (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by jifl (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by goldsimon (Submitted the item)
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

     

     

    Follow 3 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2007-05-16 goldsimon StatusNone => Done
        Open/ClosedOpen => Closed
    2007-05-07 goldsimon Attached File- => Added memp.c_nomutex.patch, #12713

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.5