lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Tasks: task #6994, Redesign Socket Layer with...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #6994: Redesign Socket Layer with LWIP_TCPIP_CORE_LOCKING
Submitter: | Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> | ||
Submitted: | Sat 09 Jun 2007 11:40:29 AM UTC | ||
Category: | socket/netconn | Should Start On: | Fri 08 Jun 2007 10:00:00 PM UTC |
Should be Finished on: | Fri 08 Jun 2007 10:00:00 PM UTC | Priority: | 1 - Later |
Status: | Cancelled | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | goldsimon | Percent Complete: | 0% |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
Effort: | 0.00 |
Jump to the original submission
Tue 17 Feb 2015 08:29:22 PM UTC, comment #22: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 24 Jun 2010 11:55:54 AM UTC, comment #21: Not really :( |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 10 Jan 2010 11:45:14 AM UTC, comment #20: Is this really still in progress? :-) |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 16 Mar 2009 01:59:51 PM UTC, comment #19: i had a quick lock to socket2.c code...
|
piero <piero74> |
Mon 16 Mar 2009 11:34:58 AM UTC, comment #18: Hi all
|
piero <piero74> |
Thu 23 Aug 2007 07:09:21 AM UTC, comment #17: As we have already talk about that in some private emails, of course, it's good for me... |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Thu 23 Aug 2007 06:18:43 AM UTC, comment #16: Idea from bug #1902: create a timer thread for timeouts instead of waiting on semaphores? |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 09 Aug 2007 02:29:42 PM UTC, comment #15:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 27 Jul 2007 10:43:06 PM UTC, comment #14: Interesting point of view, even if I don't share it on all the points.
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 27 Jul 2007 06:46:06 PM UTC, comment #13: Frédéric Bernon wrote:
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Fri 27 Jul 2007 04:00:33 PM UTC, comment #12:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 27 Jul 2007 02:30:22 PM UTC, comment #11: I don't think it's right to cast a pointer as the returned socket handle (int). This is not the sockets API and will break code that uses it. If this API is to be used for easy porting of code, then you can't just change bits you don't like.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Fri 06 Jul 2007 12:45:04 PM UTC, comment #10: The sockets2.c file attached here is not "operationnal", so, to avoid questions from users who could see it, I have set it private until it reach an stable level. I have attach it to let members like Simon (and others) do remarks about it...
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 06 Jul 2007 12:31:54 PM UTC, comment #9: Why the change to make this "private"? |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Tue 03 Jul 2007 05:34:34 PM UTC, comment #8: (Simon Goldschmidt wrote about comment #7):
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 03 Jul 2007 05:31:56 PM UTC, comment #7:
used and the rest of the operations are faster. We have to have a look on sizeof(int) versus sizeof(void*), though!
In a general way, I think we should use something like your changes for remove conn->sem (but I don't find time to study your change).
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 03 Jul 2007 05:23:47 PM UTC, comment #6: (Simon Goldschmidt wrote about the sockets2.c file attached):
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sat 30 Jun 2007 06:04:07 PM UTC, comment #5: TCP connections should not be limited to returning the contents of one netbuf only when receiving. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sun 10 Jun 2007 07:03:46 PM UTC, comment #4:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 10 Jun 2007 11:37:24 AM UTC, comment #3: I've worked on that a little and I attach a patch that does the following:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sat 09 Jun 2007 06:02:54 PM UTC, comment #2:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sat 09 Jun 2007 04:29:22 PM UTC, comment #1:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sat 09 Jun 2007 11:40:29 AM UTC, original submission:
Very first thing, it's a low task priority for developers which don't work on other tasks....
|
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 11 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015-02-17 | goldsimon | Status | Postponed | Cancelled | |
Assigned to | None | goldsimon | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2013-01-15 | goldsimon | Category | None | socket/netconn | |
2010-06-24 | fbernon | Status | In Progress | Postponed | |
Assigned to | fbernon | None | |||
2009-03-15 | fbernon | Privacy | Private | Public | |
2007-11-02 | fbernon | Priority | 3 - Low | 1 - Later | |
2007-07-03 | fbernon | Privacy | Public | Private | |
2007-07-03 | fbernon | Attached File | - | Added sockets2.c, #13236 | |
2007-06-10 | goldsimon | Attached File | - | Added lock_core.patch, #13002 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-d3ae.
Corresponding source code
Don't think this is necessary any more: when LWIP_SOCKET==1 and LWIP_NETCONN==0, all functions from api_msg.c, api_lib.c and netbuf.c are static, so by using compiler optimizations, the current socket code should effectively be nearly the same as without netconns in between.