lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Tasks: task #6683, Document lwIPs thread safety...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #6683: Document lwIPs thread safety requirements
Submitter: | Kieran Mansley <kieranm> | ||
Submitted: | Mon 26 Mar 2007 10:50:58 AM UTC | ||
Category: | Documentation | Should Start On: | Sun 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 PM UTC |
Should be Finished on: | Sun 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 PM UTC | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | Done | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | None | Percent Complete: | 0% |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
Effort: | 0.00 |
Jump to the original submission
Tue 05 May 2009 07:34:47 PM UTC, comment #24: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Wed 09 Jul 2008 04:23:14 PM UTC, comment #23: Wow, this is so great!
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 09 Nov 2007 01:13:02 PM UTC, comment #22: Downgrading the priority of this as thanks to the excellent documentation work by others it's now in a pretty good state. |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Mon 05 Nov 2007 12:49:58 PM UTC, comment #21: I guess Frederic is right that we can't keep tasks open just because the documentation wants to be improved - otherwise they would be open forever because they can always be improved :-).
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Sun 04 Nov 2007 01:01:29 PM UTC, comment #20: I think that the aim of this task is reached: "document" lwIP thread safety requirements is done on wiki (and if it miss some elements, I/we can add them).
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 04 Nov 2007 11:42:14 AM UTC, comment #19: On the one hand, I think we can close this to avoid duplicates. But on the other hand, if this task is still open, it reminds us of what's to do for 1.3.0, so I would leave it open until it's really done. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 02 Nov 2007 07:43:09 PM UTC, comment #18: Since now, http://lwip.scribblewiki.com seems to be accessible to most of users, and since most of active developers have an account on it, I propose to close this task to avoid to have multiple place to centralize the documentation. No objections?
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 20 Jul 2007 03:33:29 PM UTC, comment #17: This may not be as helpful as it initially sounds, but I've written some documentation for lwIP for the commercial version of eCos I am involved with (called eCosPro). Much of it is derived (with acknowledgements, fear not) from one of Adam Dunkel's documents; but updated to reflect the current status.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Fri 13 Jul 2007 12:07:45 PM UTC, comment #16: Note to developers - I've now made this the highest priority task we have! All help with this, and other documentation, greatly appreciated. |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Thu 19 Apr 2007 12:44:59 PM UTC, comment #15:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 19 Apr 2007 12:22:37 PM UTC, comment #14: Just my opinion, but that would be rather gratuitous API breakage, and there are no doubt many corner cases. Being divided per-file is good enough - what's missing is documentation to let people know about it. |
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Thu 19 Apr 2007 10:54:44 AM UTC, comment #13: To clarify which functions application threads may use, would it help to create an extra include directory to separate the header files that include functions that may be used from application threads from the core stack include files?
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 16 Apr 2007 07:32:56 PM UTC, comment #12:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 16 Apr 2007 04:58:21 PM UTC, comment #11: I wrote:
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Mon 16 Apr 2007 04:54:33 PM UTC, comment #10:
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Mon 16 Apr 2007 03:32:48 PM UTC, comment #9: Forgot to say in the last comment:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 16 Apr 2007 02:08:55 PM UTC, comment #8:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 16 Apr 2007 01:40:33 PM UTC, comment #7: First of all, with respect to interpretation of NO_SYS etc., IMHO we can lay down new policy, irrespective of what was originally intended. Clearly things are a bit muddy at present anyway.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Mon 16 Apr 2007 11:09:55 AM UTC, comment #6: Kieran,
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 12 Apr 2007 04:06:41 PM UTC, comment #5: Re comment #4:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 12 Apr 2007 02:07:46 PM UTC, comment #4: Agree with you Simon, but to do that, we have to :
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Thu 12 Apr 2007 01:50:22 PM UTC, comment #3: Sockets generally can't be used in from more than one thread, for now: a socket has a netconn nad that netconn's mbox is used to tell the application its request to tcpip_thread has finished. Thus, if you call socket functions from 2 or more threads at the same time, it won't be clear which request has finished when tcpip_thread posts to sock->conn->mbox.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 26 Mar 2007 04:45:12 PM UTC, comment #2: Some others informations to remember: some special functions can also cause problem with multithread: netif_xxx and dhcp_xxx. These functions used same variables than tcpip_thread. Some cases:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 26 Mar 2007 12:48:17 PM UTC, comment #1: I'm ok and have start to study several points. First, I think we have to define what in lwIP have to be thread safe. I think that we can tell that :
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 26 Mar 2007 10:50:58 AM UTC, original submission:
This is a common question and point of difficulty, so we should provide a up to date document to describe what is required.
|
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
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 7 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2009-05-05 | goldsimon | Status | None | Done | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2007-11-09 | kieranm | Planned Release | 1.3.0 | None | |
2007-11-09 | kieranm | Priority | 8 | 5 - Normal | |
2007-07-13 | kieranm | Priority | 5 - Normal | 8 | |
Assigned to | kieranm | None | |||
Planned Release | None | 1.3.0 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-02a9.
Corresponding source code
I've added 2 paragraphs on other APIs and threading to rawapi.txt, which should be sufficient to close this task.