[Top][All Lists]

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

[lwip-devel] [patch #6370] Sending to myself

From: Luca Ceresoli
Subject: [lwip-devel] [patch #6370] Sending to myself
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:16:13 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; it; rv: Gecko/20071127 Firefox/

Follow-up Comment #7, patch #6370 (project lwip):

> [Jonathan] I'm a bit unconvinced of some of the naming
I'm not proud of them, my muse was on vacation that day.

Some ideas to improve naming and the rest fo my patch.
  (argh, _very_ long)
- netif.self_{first|last} >> netif.loop_{first|last}
- loopif_poll() >> no idea (Simon?)
- LWIP_LOOPIF_MULTITHREADING: will it be needed anymore, in case
  the loop behaviour is moved into netif?
- How about setting the default value of IP_TO_SELF_MULTITHREADING
  to (!NO_SYS)?
- Moving the _output() function from loopif.c to netif.c, I changed
  from pbuf_alloc(PBUF_RAW, ...) to pbuf_alloc(PBUF_LINK, ...). I need
  an ack/nack on that by someone with more knowledge of pbufs.


> [Simon] I'd still be more pleased to leave the code in loopif.c
I see no advantage in that apart from backward compatibility (which is a
no-issue, according to Jonathan).
After all you would introduce new code, part of which tricky (the fourth of
your points is a workaround to make a single loopif mimic the proper behaviour
of many real netifs). My patch is just _moving_ good code to a place where it
does better.

What's the pros of having one (big) queue, compared to many (smaller) ones?


Reply to this item at:


  Messaggio inviato con/da Savannah

reply via email to

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