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

Submitter:  Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon>
Submitted:  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>
Group 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>
Group 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>
Group 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>
Group 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>
Group administrator
Mon 14 May 2007 12:27:04 PM UTC, comment #2: 

Silence == tacit agreement. :-)

Jonathan Larmour <jifl>
Group 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>
Group 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>
Group administrator

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

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)
  •  

    There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.

     

    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 3.13-f8d8.
    Corresponding source code