[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [lwip-devel] netif->flags: u8_t -> u16_t ?

From: Ivan Delamer
Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] netif->flags: u8_t -> u16_t ?
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:11:50 -0700

Cool, I'll expand it then.

BTW, there seem to be some flags that are unused:

NETIF_FLAG_POINTTOPOINT: set by PPP but otherwise un-checked and unused
NETIF_FLAG_DHCP: seems to have been replaced by struct dhcp *dhcp; field

should we clean up or leave it?

Also, agree with Simon on IPv6 being optional. Although there has also been a request for IPv4 be made optional and I can see use cases for this, especially considering 6LowPAN WSNs (which I'm working on right now)


Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:59:24 +0100
From: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
To: lwip-devel <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] netif->flags: u8_t -> u16_t ?
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Sylvain Rochet wrote:
I'm finding that all 8 flags in the NETIF interface are taken. I'd
have to expand the flags field to 16 bit.

Should I do it conditionally (i.e. #if LWIP_IPV6 -> u16_t flags;),
or do we think it's time to increase the size of this field for all
I don't think adding more ifdef for only one byte of memory is really

Yep. I can't even remember talking about netif->flags... pbuf size is
always an issue because of possible cache line alignment requirements,
but netif should be no problem at all seeing that most users will have
one or two of these at most...

Plus, we should already all use IPv6 nowadays, still considering IPv6 as
a nice-to-have and not a must-have sounds wrong for me :)

Now that depends a *lot* on your target market. I guess our products
won't need to support IPv6 for the next five to ten years, simply
because there would be noone to talk to :-)


reply via email to

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