[lwip-devel] [task #7490] Add return value to sys_mbox_post

[Frédéric Bernon]

Follow-up Comment #24, task #7490 (project lwip):

>to sys_arch.txt: To prevent people porting lwIP to get confused about the
'size' argument, I'd add something like 'Elements stored in mboxes are
pointers.' to the description of sys_mbox_new() so that people can calculate
the actual memory size needed. Also, 0 = max or 0 = default should be
mentioned somewhere, I think (since TCPIP_MBOX_SIZE is 0 by default). 

ok, I change it (when I will attach a new patch file, tell me if it 's
better)

>I would rather include a new function (tcpip_trycallback or something), that
way, it is not linked when not used. 

I'm not sure: since tcpip_callback is used as blocking in part of lwip like
sockopt or ppp, and if you need tcpip_trycallback in your driver, I'm afraid
the code size increase would be larger than add a
"tcpip_callback_with_block(void (*f)(void *ctx), void *ctx, u8_t block)", and
add a "#define tcpip_callback(f,c) tcpip_callback_with_block(f,c,1)"

>Resetting the pcb callbacks, calling tcp_close (or tcp_abort), freeing
conn->mbox, conn->recvmbox and conn should be done. This can be done in an
extra function to be combined with do_close_internal() and netconn_delete()
(draining the mboxes doesn't hurt). 

ok, I will try to add it (or if you have time...)

>About using sys_mbox_trypost in api_msg.c:recv_tcp(): Does this really work?
We should take a look at tcp_in.c to see if retransmitted data is given to the
application again on receiving a second time... after all I think tcp might
already have ACKed that data... ?? 

yes, I thought about that, but I try to follow suggestions from comment#9.
But I think you're right, and we should not use post in this recv_tcp.



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?7490>

_______________________________________________
  Message posté via/par Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/