lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #19347, netif_add & tcpip_init problem
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #19347: netif_add & tcpip_init problem
Submitter: | Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> | ||
Submitted: | Mon 19 Mar 2007 05:53:16 PM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | Faulty Behaviour | Status: | Works For Me |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | fbernon |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | None |
Jump to the original submission
Tue 22 May 2007 07:05:29 AM UTC, comment #44: |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 21 May 2007 04:54:33 PM UTC, comment #43: So you want it included? By now, I'm on a point where I think it can be left out (let the DHCP timer always run) since it really doesn't slow down the system that much (the time span for the DHCP timers is rather long). On the other hand, we have such a mechanism for the TCP timer already, so...
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 21 May 2007 04:46:21 PM UTC, comment #42: Just about your DHCP patch, see comment #35, and comment #31. |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 13 May 2007 11:09:36 AM UTC, comment #41: I think we can close this now. It "works for me", too! :-) |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 03 May 2007 06:57:31 PM UTC, comment #40: Ooops, I'm sorry. But that was over a month ago ;-)
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 03 May 2007 06:44:21 PM UTC, comment #39:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Thu 03 May 2007 06:33:04 PM UTC, comment #38: Just a thought: can't we implement tcpip_netifapi() somehow without allocating a semaphore for each call? For example by having one semaphore per thread? |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 23 Apr 2007 02:13:26 PM UTC, comment #37: Frédéric,
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sun 22 Apr 2007 09:43:22 PM UTC, comment #36:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 20 Apr 2007 06:37:45 PM UTC, comment #35: Any comments on patch file #12404 (automatically starting/stopping the dhcp timers on dhcp_start/stop())?
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Wed 11 Apr 2007 10:17:04 PM UTC, comment #34: Hi Simon,
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 11 Apr 2007 01:37:02 PM UTC, comment #33: Frédéric,
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 06 Apr 2007 10:13:28 AM UTC, comment #32: Simon, it's check in. Send my your comments, but I won't be to my office during some days, so, I will check from home if there is any answers... About dhcp part, see comment #31...
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Thu 05 Apr 2007 12:51:10 PM UTC, comment #31: Ok, I join a ZIP file with two new files :
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 04 Apr 2007 07:21:26 PM UTC, comment #30: Ok, I will study and give you my comments. I hope to get time to provide you a "final" patch for netifapi.c before this week end...
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 04 Apr 2007 07:17:25 PM UTC, comment #29: Found some time for automatic dhcp timers, it's not that big anyway. May not be bug-free, only to show what I mean. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 03 Apr 2007 02:35:49 PM UTC, comment #28: Yes it will. Ok, I continue patch like this...
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 03 Apr 2007 02:33:20 PM UTC, comment #27: I think that's ok, yes. Since the struct will be allocated on the stack (it will, won't it?), storing some pointers is not that hard keeping in mind those functions aren't called often. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 03 Apr 2007 02:30:33 PM UTC, comment #26:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 03 Apr 2007 01:43:13 PM UTC, comment #25: Hi Frédéric,
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 03 Apr 2007 01:18:07 PM UTC, comment #24: Ok, I prepare a new patch file. I would like to get your point of view about comment #15, points 2/ & 3/ ...
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 03 Apr 2007 01:06:13 PM UTC, comment #23: Hm, I think I really don't care :-) |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 03 Apr 2007 12:32:03 PM UTC, comment #22: uhmm, so, why not all in a single netifapi.c (with a minimal part in tcpip.c) ? |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 03 Apr 2007 11:12:42 AM UTC, comment #21: Yes, it's ok for me to create a semaphore each time this function is called. And including the sem into struct netifapi_msg is much better than using the conn->mbox.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 03 Apr 2007 09:09:31 AM UTC, comment #20: Yes, "global" semaphore is a good idea, but in this case, we can't propose a nice "integrated" netifapi for callers :
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 02 Apr 2007 06:24:40 PM UTC, comment #19: The second patch (file #12348) is about how I would do it. I don't think it's too bad to separate netifapi_msg stuff from api_msg, I don't like the union stuff too much, anyway...
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 02 Apr 2007 02:50:44 PM UTC, comment #18: About synchrone calling, I don't have put anything in this draft to do it. In tcpip_netifapi, you can see this line :
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 02 Apr 2007 02:45:05 PM UTC, comment #17: About LWIP_NETIF_API (which allow to enable code only when you need this part of the API), I thought the CHANGELOG file was enough, but if not, I will comment more, to explain the thread-safe problem with these functions if you want or have to call them at any time...
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 02 Apr 2007 02:17:18 PM UTC, comment #16: Some code comments to explain what the reason for the LWIP_NETIF_API is for, and how to use the API would be great, but otherwise I have no problem with this.
|
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Fri 30 Mar 2007 04:07:27 PM UTC, comment #15: I propose here a first DRAFT for a thread-safe netif api. Draft, because as is, it can be used, but it is to have a first release to talk.
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Thu 29 Mar 2007 12:45:53 PM UTC, comment #14:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 29 Mar 2007 12:35:57 PM UTC, comment #13:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 28 Mar 2007 02:07:49 PM UTC, comment #12:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 27 Mar 2007 10:53:41 PM UTC, comment #11: Ok, that's all fair enough, and I'll say that I only had 4 hours sleep last night, and that's my excuse ;-).
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Tue 27 Mar 2007 06:02:40 PM UTC, comment #10:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 27 Mar 2007 04:42:23 PM UTC, comment #9: Okay, I see what you are trying to solve - not (necessarily) the initial netif_adds, but later dynamic ones.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Fri 23 Mar 2007 08:56:36 AM UTC, comment #8: I'm agree with Simon (and in fact, it was in another thread about dhcp_stop/start we have talk about that). Changes will add some source code, but no footprint increase if yor don't enable the option (which will be disable per default). Even, performance don't change...
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 23 Mar 2007 07:59:34 AM UTC, comment #7: Jonathan,
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 23 Mar 2007 07:19:42 AM UTC, comment #6: Hold on, step back here. What problem are you trying to solve?
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Wed 21 Mar 2007 07:50:39 PM UTC, comment #5: Hello Simon,
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Wed 21 Mar 2007 07:44:08 PM UTC, comment #4: If you don't take the packet (in tcpip.c) in tcp_input() and tcpip_ethinput(), shouldn't you free the pbuf? If not, ethernetif would have to evaluate the return value of the netif->input() function and free the packet on error. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 20 Mar 2007 06:03:59 PM UTC, comment #3: Patch submit. tcpip's mbox is checked. But Adding hotplug interfaces is always a problem.
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 20 Mar 2007 03:24:31 PM UTC, comment #2: I propose you this patch to verify before any post the mbox variable. The file is join. Is no objection, I will commit it...
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 20 Mar 2007 08:20:31 AM UTC, comment #1: A first thing to do will be to initialize in tcpip.c the mbox like this :
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 19 Mar 2007 05:53:16 PM UTC, original submission:
I've already talk about that with Simon, but I would like to get some other comments about initialization time.
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007-05-22 | fbernon | Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |
2007-04-06 | fbernon | Status | In Progress | Works For Me | |
2007-04-05 | fbernon | Attached File | - | Added netifapi.zip, #12404 | |
2007-04-04 | goldsimon | Attached File | - | Added dhcp.c.patch, #12402 | |
2007-03-30 | fbernon | Status | None | In Progress | |
2007-03-30 | fbernon | Attached File | - | Added netifapi.patch, #12348 | |
2007-03-20 | fbernon | Attached File | - | Added tcpip.c.patch, #12219 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-caa5.
Corresponding source code
Ok, I close it, because the DHCP timers startup can be another task...