[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lwip-devel] [bug #48964] PBUF_POOL init.c checks need to be disabled wh
From: |
Joel Cunningham |
Subject: |
[lwip-devel] [bug #48964] PBUF_POOL init.c checks need to be disabled when using PBUF_REF for RX |
Date: |
Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:42:14 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:47.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/47.0 |
URL:
<http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?48964>
Summary: PBUF_POOL init.c checks need to be disabled when
using PBUF_REF for RX
Project: lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack
Submitted by: jcunningham
Submitted on: Wed 31 Aug 2016 08:42:12 PM GMT
Category: TCP
Severity: 3 - Normal
Item Group: Faulty Behaviour
Status: None
Privacy: Public
Assigned to: None
Open/Closed: Open
Discussion Lock: Any
Planned Release: None
lwIP version: git head
_______________________________________________________
Details:
My products use !MEMP_MEM_MALLOC and PBUF_REF for zero-copy in the RX
pathway.
I'm running into an issue where there are PBUF_POOL checks in init.c that are
tripping when I increase TCP_WND beyond what could be in PBUF_POOL
(PBUF_POOL_SIZE * PBUF_POOL_BUFSIZE).
Should we be wrapping PBUF_POOL_BUFSIZE and PBUF_POOL_SIZE sanity checks
(init.c line 304) with some kind of define for whether PBUF_POOL is in use?
Further, it seems from code analysis that I should be able to completely
disable PBUF_POOL by setting PBUF_POOL_SIZE to 0, is this correct? Maybe we
can add "&& PBUF_POOL_SIZE" to both checks?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?48964>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.nongnu.org/
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [lwip-devel] [bug #48964] PBUF_POOL init.c checks need to be disabled when using PBUF_REF for RX,
Joel Cunningham <=