lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Tasks: task #10370, Raw API: Callback for received FIN...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #10370: Raw API: Callback for received FIN to confirm connection is closed
Submitter: | Iordan Neshev <iordan_neshev> | ||
Submitted: | Wed 05 May 2010 09:17:12 PM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Should Start On: | Wed 05 May 2010 12:00:00 AM UTC |
Should be Finished on: | Wed 05 May 2010 12:00:00 AM UTC | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | Done | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | goldsimon | Percent Complete: | 100% |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | 1.4.0 |
Effort: | 50.00 |
Jump to the original submission
Wed 16 Jun 2010 11:00:20 AM UTC, comment #8: |
Iordan Neshev <iordan_neshev> |
Wed 16 Jun 2010 09:51:03 AM UTC, comment #7:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Wed 16 Jun 2010 08:40:56 AM UTC, comment #6: Finally, I found the time to check this.
|
Iordan Neshev <iordan_neshev> |
Tue 18 May 2010 01:12:17 PM UTC, comment #5: Sounds good to me Simon - your description matches the behaviour I think we should have. If Iordan agrees, and ideally can verify this is the behaviour we do have, this can then be closed. |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Sat 15 May 2010 06:12:35 PM UTC, comment #4: That change is nearly three months ago now, but that doesn't matter much.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 11 May 2010 04:59:16 PM UTC, comment #3: I think that this callback should always come up. How else would an application know what happened with its close request?
|
Iordan Neshev <iordan_neshev> |
Tue 11 May 2010 04:34:31 PM UTC, comment #2: I think it was meant like that. I'm a bit unceartain if the callback should never come or only if we send a RST (we send a RST if we call close but have unacked data left)... |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 11 May 2010 09:15:48 AM UTC, comment #1: Seems like replacing the old tcp_close() with
|
Iordan Neshev <iordan_neshev> |
Wed 05 May 2010 09:17:12 PM UTC, original submission:
Recently the TCP_EVENT_RECV macro was changed -
|
Iordan Neshev <iordan_neshev> |
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 6 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010-06-16 | goldsimon | Status | Ready For Test | Done | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2010-05-16 | goldsimon | Planned Release | None | 1.4.0 | |
2010-05-15 | goldsimon | Status | None | Ready For Test | |
Percent Complete | 0% | 100% | |||
Assigned to | None | goldsimon |
Powered by Savane 3.13-f8d8.
Corresponding source code
Yes, I did.
So, if I reset the err callback I will not be able to use SO_LINGER. Currently I don't need it, but who knows what the future brings? I'd better not put needless limitations.
Also, I set a flag there (the err cb) that is tested in many places and currently I don't have the time to revise the whole application to find out what would be the impact of such change. I'll try to find some other approach later. If there are problems, I'll ask lwip_users.
I think this task can be closed now.
Thanks again for your work.