Re: [lwip-users] arp question

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello Jim,

Jim Gibbons wrote:

> In the matter of ARP, I think some concurrent access protection might 
> be in order in common use scenarios.  Perhaps it should be noted in 
> comments so that callers could do it, since the callers are usually 
> netif implementors.
>
> I agree that it is a simple matter to get etharp_output and the timer 
> to run out of the tcpip task.  I think it is substantially harder to 
> get etharp_ip_input and etharp_arp_input to run in that context.  Most 
> of us who implement netif's in multitasking environments end up with 
> an ethernet receive thread from which the etharp input functions must 
> be called.  Other brave souls do this from an interrupt context.  In 
> the former case, a mutex would provide the protection required, while 
> in the latter case SYS_LIGHTWEIGHT_PROT methods might be used to 
> protect the timer and output.
>
> Finally, a very broad question.  Is 1.0.0 ready for prime time?  I 
> have two embedded systems currently running 0.7.2, and it has been 
> hard for me to tell from all of the e-mail going by whether 1.0.0 
> would prove to be more stable or less so for these products.
Nope, we hope 1.1.0 to be of 0.7.2 stability.

The 0.7.x received excellent testing (I recall lots of embedded 
developers sharing test results then), but currently
although we have lots of users there is relatively little feedback (but 
we welcome the feedback we got!).

We hope developers take the time for testing, this is a community 
project after all, and we cannot guarantee
we are providing a fully stable TCP/IP stack, although that is our 
ultimate goal (and 0.7.2 proves to be that,
although we now now it has some glitches in corner cases).


Regards,

Leon.