[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [lwip-devel] lwIP + SLIP/PPP single threaded

From: Simon Kallweit
Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] lwIP + SLIP/PPP single threaded
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:47:04 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20081105)

address@hidden schrieb:
Simon Kallweit wrote:
SLIP needs to be changed, so that slipif_input() assumes non-blocking reads on the serial io and returns when no more data can be read. This can be done rather easily.
Exactly. After all, for lwIP, SLIP is only another netif and the current implementation happens to be blocking...

So it's fine if this is changed to non-blocking? This would need me to move the local variables of the slipif_input() function to some private struct attached to the netif. What's the best solution for that? Is it fine to allocate some memory during slipif_init call and use netif->state as a pointer to the struct? Or is there some other preferred way?

PPP would need to be changed in a similar fashion, making it non-blocking, and in addition provide a separate timeout implementation.
I wouldn't know exactly since I didn't yet _use_ lwIP PPP (only browsed through the source code deciding not to try it :), but isn't the existing timeout management of lwIP enough for PPP, too?

The timeout management of lwIP is fine, but if I'm going to use NO_SYS=1, the timeout system is just empty macros. And that's exactly what I'm aming for.

I was wondering what version of pppd was used for the current lwIP ppp implementation?
I'm afraid I don't understand that question? Is pppd (I assume you mean the *nix one) mentioned there somewhere? I'd guess it could be used against any version of pppd as long as you run that with the correct settings (which can get quite complicated).

It was just my rough guess that the PPP netif is adapted from the Unix pppd package. A diff at least shows some similarity, so I was wondering if it would be worth updating to the current pppd implementation. Unfortunately this looks like quite a bit of work ...

Is it currently maintained?
You mean lwIP PPP, right? The sad answer is: no. Since none of the (4?) active developers seems to be using it, the only active development currently is coming from 'users' on lwip-devel or lwip-users sending in patches.

Ok, that's what I was afraid of :)

Is anyone interested in helping out?
I guess we'd all be happy to see someone working on lwIP PPP: any users wanting to become active developers + maintainers for this part are of course welcome!

I really need PPP for our product. But it's all a matter of time ...


reply via email to

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