[lwip-devel] [task #6969] Review usage of conn->err in netconn layer

[Simon Goldschmidt]

Follow-up Comment #25, task #6969 (project lwip):

On the one hand, you're right: marking the whole connection as dead because
of one packet isn't good. But on the other hand, a TCP packet that is enqueued
and can't be sent because it is too long will never be split up, so the whole
connection *is* dead, anyway.

Maybe we should define what the difference between ERR_MEM and ERR_BUF is. I
think returning ERR_BUF here might work...



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?6969>

_______________________________________________
  Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/