[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-devel] insane sanity check in 1.4.1?
From: |
Mason |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-devel] insane sanity check in 1.4.1? |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:44:40 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:18.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/18.0 SeaMonkey/2.15 |
RAc wrote:
> I'm obviously missing something here, but given that
>
> #ifndef TCP_SNDQUEUELOWAT
> #define TCP_SNDQUEUELOWAT ((TCP_SND_QUEUELEN)/2)
> #endif
>
> (lwip 1.4.0)
>
> or, respectively (1.4.1),
>
> #ifndef TCP_SNDQUEUELOWAT
> #define TCP_SNDQUEUELOWAT LWIP_MAX(((TCP_SND_QUEUELEN)/2), 5)
> #endif
>
> wouldn't the sanity check
>
> if (TCP_SNDQUEUELOWAT >= TCP_SND_QUEUELEN)
> LWIP_PLATFORM_DIAG(("lwip_sanity_check: WARNING: TCP_SNDQUEUELOWAT must
> be less than TCP_SND_QUEUELEN.\n"));
>
>
> in init.c by definition always catch in (unless you explicitly redefine
> TCP_SNDQUEUELOWAT to something else? Why would you do that?)
I don't see how
TCP_SND_QUEUELEN)/2 can be >= TCP_SND_QUEUELEN
(unless TCP_SND_QUEUELEN = 0)
So things are fine in 1.4.0 right?
In 1.4.1, AFAICT, TCP_SND_QUEUELEN = 8 by default
and max(8/2,5)=5 is lower than 8, so no problem.
What am I missing in your bug report?
--
Regards.
- [lwip-devel] insane sanity check in 1.4.1?, RAc, 2013/01/04
- Re: [lwip-devel] insane sanity check in 1.4.1?, RAc, 2013/01/16
- Re: [lwip-devel] insane sanity check in 1.4.1?, Simon Goldschmidt, 2013/01/16
- Re: [lwip-devel] insane sanity check in 1.4.1?, RAc, 2013/01/16
- Re: [lwip-devel] insane sanity check in 1.4.1?,
Mason <=
- Re: [lwip-devel] insane sanity check in 1.4.1?, RAc, 2013/01/16
- Re: [lwip-devel] insane sanity check in 1.4.1?, RAc, 2013/01/18