[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [lwip-devel] [ppp-new]ppp_reopen bug!

From: 韩辉
Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] [ppp-new]ppp_reopen bug!
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:13:47 +0800 (CST)

At 2012-08-25 02:54:13,"Sylvain Rochet" <address@hidden> wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:27:20PM +0800, ?? wrote:
>> Hi
>> ppp_reopen() clean ppp_pcb_rx structure, and this can cause memory 
>> leak and other error!
>I know, PPP PCB recycling with PPPoS is not supported yet, as stated 
>with the currently empty ppp_over_serial_reopen().
>I don't like the way ppp.c is currently designed, with the PPPoS low 
>layer code mixed with PPPoE and PPPoL2TP calls, because the original 
>port was only designed to handle PPPoS.
>In my opinion this should be designed with a PPP core code only doing 
>the PPP stuff without knowing anything about PPPoS(HDLC), PPPoE or 
>PPPoL2TP lower layer stuff. With each of them having a different API 
>because they have different needs (this is actually the case, we have 
>more or less 3 different API regarding ppp_over_*_open + functions which 
>use the current PPP context to call the appropriate low layer function).
>of a problem for me, ppp_input_thread() looping around PPP phase is 
>probably not that thread safe, next it requires a way to be destroyed, 
>which is not supported in all schedulers and this sys_msleep(1) sounds 
>ugly. All threads stuff are only required for PPPoS input, I guess this 
>should be better pushed to the PPP(oS) sequential thread-safe API like 
>TCPIP API/tcpip_input() does.
>This is not so hard to do and it will improve a lot the ppp.c readiness, 
>but require to change the whole API, therefore I am balanced between 
>"that would be great, lets do that!" and "it works this way but this is 
>not in its best shape, should I bother about that ?".
The PPP core independent design is very necessary, hierarchical design will be very conducive to the maintenance and expansion. Isolation level details.
there are many mechanisms of LWIP for compatibility with no operating system, some mechanisms have been difficult to achieve, and I personally think that if the blind pursuit of miniaturization and functional balance, it will be counterproductive. [ppp-new] branch can only consider having the operation system? If you want to use ppp, has a small operating system is necessary, of course, this is just my little ideas.

reply via email to

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