lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Tasks: task #7525, Implement TCP listen backlog
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #7525: Implement TCP listen backlog
Submitter: | Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> | ||
Submitted: | Sun 16 Dec 2007 04:53:05 PM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Should Start On: | Sun 16 Dec 2007 12:00:00 AM UTC |
Should be Finished on: | Sun 16 Dec 2007 12:00:00 AM UTC | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | Done | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | None | Percent Complete: | 100% |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | 1.3.0 |
Effort: | 0.00 |
Jump to the original submission
Sun 06 Jan 2008 07:39:33 PM UTC, comment #37: |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 06 Jan 2008 11:02:41 AM UTC, comment #36:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sat 05 Jan 2008 06:42:27 PM UTC, comment #35: Yes, I'm agree that a strict respect of opengroup specifications can be implemented easily.
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sat 05 Jan 2008 06:34:04 PM UTC, comment #34: Thanks Frederic!
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Fri 04 Jan 2008 10:29:35 PM UTC, comment #33: Ok, it's check in. Jonathan, I have modify the CHANGELOG like you have proposed. About "backlog < 0", I have limited in the u8_t range in lwip_listen, like proposed in comment #31. If backlog = 0, it is set like the smallest queue.
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 04 Jan 2008 02:11:47 PM UTC, comment #32: I think Frederic's suggestion is right, given what the opengroup URL says.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Fri 04 Jan 2008 01:04:39 PM UTC, comment #31:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 04 Jan 2008 11:08:43 AM UTC, comment #30: The patch seems fine to me (although sadly I don't have much time for lwIP at the moment and so couldn't study it in detail).
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 04 Jan 2008 08:15:12 AM UTC, comment #29:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 04 Jan 2008 01:20:05 AM UTC, comment #28: Hi Frederic,
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Fri 04 Jan 2008 12:30:21 AM UTC, comment #27: I attach a patch about remarks in comments #23-#26. Is there any objections to check in it?
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 23 Dec 2007 11:14:23 AM UTC, comment #26:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 23 Dec 2007 11:12:55 AM UTC, comment #25:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sat 22 Dec 2007 10:29:44 PM UTC, comment #24: Other remarks :
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sat 22 Dec 2007 10:01:56 PM UTC, comment #23: Some remarks about last check in:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 21 Dec 2007 04:49:53 PM UTC, comment #22: I've checked in the last patch + missing things (lwip_listen, netconn_listen...). Note I've changed LWIP_MAX_LISTEN_BACKLOG to LWIP_DEFAULT_LISTEN_BACKLOG (which is used in tcp_listen() and netconn_listen() (without backlog)) since I don't think checking the argument 'backlog' agains MAX_LISTEN_BACKLOG makes mutch sense... |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 21 Dec 2007 12:39:08 PM UTC, comment #21:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 21 Dec 2007 11:36:18 AM UTC, comment #20: I think this looks good.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Fri 21 Dec 2007 11:28:28 AM UTC, comment #19:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 21 Dec 2007 10:38:20 AM UTC, comment #18: OK, if you put it that way... OK with me.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 20 Dec 2007 02:01:24 PM UTC, comment #17:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Thu 20 Dec 2007 01:55:59 PM UTC, comment #16: In opt.h:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Thu 20 Dec 2007 11:52:04 AM UTC, comment #15:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 20 Dec 2007 11:06:44 AM UTC, comment #14: For "to_accept", how about "accepts_pending"
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Wed 19 Dec 2007 10:02:30 PM UTC, comment #13: I attach a patch file (without the changes in lwip_listen and netconn_listen, which could be the same than your patch). You can see where are the use of "to_accept" (which can be rename to something better) and "backlog".
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 19 Dec 2007 02:55:22 PM UTC, comment #12: I don't really like do_recv being used for that, but as Jonathan said, it's probably OK to save space...
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Wed 19 Dec 2007 02:48:36 PM UTC, comment #11:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 19 Dec 2007 01:46:15 PM UTC, comment #10: Ah, I see what you mean now. I guess overloading do_recv might save a little code, so that seems fine then. I presume that the API message would be sent directly from netconn_accept, rather than by a dummy call of netconn_recv.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Wed 19 Dec 2007 08:11:35 AM UTC, comment #9:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 19 Dec 2007 03:37:24 AM UTC, comment #8: It looks like Frederic was saying what I was thinking of pretty much. It seems like much less code.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Mon 17 Dec 2007 10:54:06 AM UTC, comment #7:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 17 Dec 2007 10:49:01 AM UTC, comment #6: And need to do "to_accept++;" if TCP_EVENT_ACCEPT return ERR_OK;
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 17 Dec 2007 10:42:12 AM UTC, comment #5: Attach a text file (could be more readable). Note this is not a patch file, it's just to show the difference (there is no initialize part by example). |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 17 Dec 2007 10:39:12 AM UTC, comment #4:
...
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 17 Dec 2007 07:30:55 AM UTC, comment #3:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sun 16 Dec 2007 09:44:23 PM UTC, comment #2: I haven't had a chance to look closely at this patch, but why not just integrate this support directly into the raw TCP functions, with the backlog and current count of waiters as part of the PCB? The netconn accept function can then directly change the count of waiters in the PCB as it accepts them.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Sun 16 Dec 2007 07:55:37 PM UTC, comment #1:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 16 Dec 2007 04:53:05 PM UTC, original submission:
For the socket listen backlog (which would also be good to integrate into the netconn API) to work, we need
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
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 12 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2008-04-08 | goldsimon | Status | Ready For Test | Done | |
2008-01-06 | fbernon | Percent Complete | 90% | 100% | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2008-01-04 | fbernon | Percent Complete | 80% | 90% | |
2008-01-04 | fbernon | Attached File | - | Added backlog.patch, #14744 | |
Percent Complete | 70% | 80% | |||
2007-12-22 | fbernon | Planned Release | None | 1.3.0 | |
2007-12-21 | goldsimon | Status | None | Ready For Test | |
Percent Complete | 0% | 70% | |||
2007-12-19 | fbernon | Attached File | - | Added backlog.patch, #14671 | |
2007-12-17 | fbernon | Attached File | - | Added backlog.txt, #14643 | |
2007-12-16 | goldsimon | Attached File | - | Added lwip_backlog.patch, #14637 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-3230.
Corresponding source code
Since there is no objections, I close it...