Re: RE : [lwip-devel] Can we remove pbuf_init()

[Jonathan Larmour]

[ Old message I know ]
Frédéric BERNON wrote:
> Uhmm, it will not change a lot the footprint, but is done for future uses. So, 
> to my point of view, it's better to let it. But it really cause you any 
> problems, remove it...

I agree with Frederic, although I also think there's a lot more could be 
done to improve stack initialisation so users don't need to make all these 
individual subsystem initialisation calls.

Perhaps:
 #define pbuf_init() do { } while (0)
so there's no code overhead.

Jifl

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden De la part de Goldschmidt Simon
> Envoyé : lundi 11 juin 2007 12:39
> À : lwip-devel
> Objet : [lwip-devel] Can we remove pbuf_init()
>
>
>
> It doesn't do anything any more, only checks alignment of PBUF_POOL_BUFSIZE. 
> It's simpler changing the use of PBUF_POOL_BUFSIZE in pbuf.c (and some other 
> files) to MEM_ALIGN_SIZE(PBUF_POOL_BUFSIZE).
>
> Or does anyone need pbuf_init() (maybe for the future)???
>
> I'll remove it if noone objects ;-)
>
>
> Simon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lwip-devel mailing list
> address@hidden http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-devel
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> lwip-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-devel


--
eCosCentric Limited      http://www.eCosCentric.com/     The eCos experts
Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK.       Tel: +44 1223 245571
Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071.
------["The best things in life aren't things."]------      Opinions==mine