[lwip-devel] [task #6969] Review usage of conn->err in netconn layer

[Frédéric Bernon]

Follow-up Comment #26, task #6969 (project lwip):

>What I might like is something like a non-fatal ERR_IF. 

Adding some new error codes doesn't really have a high cost. But in your case
("my driver is if someone tries to send a packet where the pbuf chain is more
than the driver can cope with"), what should be the application processing ?

>Maybe we should define what the difference between ERR_MEM and ERR_BUF is. I
think returning ERR_BUF here might work

I think we should return ERR_MEM on mem_alloc error, and on sys_xxx_new
errors (even if in some cases, it could be better to return a "fatal" error
code). ERR_BUF is more for memp and pbuf allocation errors.

>And another problem would be that all old errors would be non-fatal (since
bit6 = 0), so that would have to be turned around so that only new code can
generate non-fatal errors.

I think the initial idea which a "less than" compare "is simpler" to
understand and maintain. More, if a non-fatal code is -5 and a fatal is -69
(-5 | bit6=1), how do you process the err_to_errno_table ?



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?6969>

_______________________________________________
  Message posté via/par Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/