[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [lwip-devel] [bug #19162] lwip_sendto: possible to corrupt remoteadd

From: Kieran Mansley
Subject: RE: [lwip-devel] [bug #19162] lwip_sendto: possible to corrupt remoteaddr/port connection state
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:43:50 +0000

On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 21:44 -0600, Taranowski, Thomas (SWCOE) wrote:
> I suspect most developers butt heads with this issue after they've
> already done initial design work based on the assumption that the API
> calls are thread safe.  If the lwIP way was better documented in the
> code, we'd probably here less of this issue.  
> This brings up sort of a personal annoyance of mine, and that is the
> general lack of documentation within the lwIP source.  The documentation
> for some modules, such as pbuf, is awesome, but there are other files
> with nothing.  The new user/porter is left wandering around lost in the
> weeds.  I've been wanting to commit some documentation only commentary.
> I'd like to know if we have a recommended comment format.  If not, I'll
> probably keep with a doxygen style.
> If I don't here back on a recommended format, I'll just pick what I want
> and submit some documentation patches.

I couldn't agree more.  More documentation is definitely a good thing,
and good documentation submissions are always welcome.  If you can match
what the format that is there already (for example you mention the pbuf
code) that would help give some consistency, but if you think there's a
good reason to do otherwise I'd rather see "documentation in your
preferred format" than "no documention".



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]