Re: [lwip-users] socket changes and lightweight protection

[David Haas]

Ed,

Good idea. That is exactly what I intended.

David.


Ed Sutter wrote:

> David,
> A suggestion (in case you hadn't already considered this)...
> The sys_arch_protect() and unprotect() functions should be
> able to deal with nesting...
>
>   pval = sys_arch_protect();
>       pval = sys_arch_protect();
>       sys_arch_unprotect(pval);   <<--- should not cause an unprotect
>   sys_arch_unprotect(pval);
>
> Agree?  It's similar to uC/OS's critical section type 3.
> Ed
>
> David Haas wrote:
>  
>
> > I have been meaning to integrate the select() code into the source tree,
> > but last week I was very busy on a different project :-( .
> >
> > If it is OK with everybody, I will work on integrating all these socket
> > changes and hope to have it done in a day or two. I will do some
> > (limited) testing before I check it in.
> >
> > Also, I had put in some lightweight protection into pbuf and memp code
> > (in a patch) which disabled interrupts. Several people commented on this
> > and thought that we should not be disabling interrupts. I agree that on
> > many systems this is undesirable. So how about a sys_arch_protect() and
> > sys_arch_unprotect(). This can then be implemented differently on
> > different systems.
> >
> > Any comments???
> >
> > David.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lwip-users mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lwip-users mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
> >