Re: [lwip-devel] core/timers.c with NO_SYS?

[address@hidden]

Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> This is 95% taking mutex locks on data structures or even pieces of
> code, without even the idea what data is actually protected against
> concurrent access.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean with this sentence. I'd be 
happy to explain the usage of the locks, if that's what's unclear.
> However, this makes the pretention that that part of the stack is
> multithreading safe, which I'm almost sure it is not (but I cannot
> prove it).
Well, it certainly is designed to be. And if it's not safe, that would 
be a bug. In that case, I'd be happy to get it fixed.

Back in the 1.2.0 days, using the skeleton ethernetif.c in multithreaded 
environments had some multithreading issues (ARP and memp were not 
protected against concurrent use: the arp input functions and 
pbuf_alloc() were called from ethernetif_input()) and this is how it was 
solved.

Simon