Re: [lwip-users] question about compile minimal under Fedora 2

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello Jim,


On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:51, Jim Gibbons wrote:
> I was hoping that you would get a more expert opinion than mine, but I
> haven't seen any, so I guess mine will have to serve.
> 
Serves perfectly well, and shows great expertise :-)

> It looks to me as though your model for the use of lwIP relates to an
> older version of lwIP.  etharp_ip_input used to return NULL always. 
> etharp_arp_input used to return a pbuf if it needed to have an arp
> output packet transmitted.  
> 
> In 1.1.0, someone modified etharp, so that it would return void from
> etharp_ip_input and etharp_arp_input.  etharp_ip_input probably should
> have been that way all along.  etharp_arp_input was perfectly capable
> of calling the output function itself, since it had a netif.  It all
> makes more sense the way it is now, but it does make some old code
> implementations obsolete.

Thanks for this clear explanation. This is exactly what happened.

That someone was me, and yes, sometimes API changes have to be made to
work towards a cleaner implementation.

Regards,

Leon.