Re: lwIP upgrade to CVS HEAD

[Simon Kallweit <simon.kallweit@intefo.ch>]

John Dallaway wrote:
>> * sys.h: Added an include. I don't know if this really is necessary.
>> Will check with the lwIP mailing list.
>> * init.c: Removed a check for PPP in NO_SYS mode, which is not valid
>> with my current PPP changes.
>> * ppp: I did some work on the PPP code, added polling support, added
>> pppdump support. As said earlier, this is currently quite a mess, and I
>> think we should work on the lwIP port first, not focusing on PPP.
> 
> Yes, let's focus on getting a clean port of the lwIP with solid ethernet
> support committed. If I understand correctly, PPP support in the master
> lwIP sources has some problems at present. Fixing the PPP support sounds
> like a separate project to me.

Totally agreed.

>> Well, that's it. Not many changes at all, and I think with some commits
>> to the lwIP repository we can use the pure lwIP code with no changes at
>> all. Getting PPP right on the other hand, will need some serious work.
> 
> Do you know if anyone in the lwIP community is intending to work on the
> PPP support in the near future?

No, currently there is nobody intending to work on it. With the latest 
commits to lwIP, PPP even got broken in a few places. Ultimately, 
someone should take the current pppd sources which the lwIP PPP port is 
originally based on and adapt to them. But this is quite a bit of work.

> I will review the CDL.

Good to hear :)

> The sequential API is required for the socket API and desirable in its
> own right as it provides a good compromise between ease of use and
> memory footprint. John Eigelaar has indicated that he would be willing
> to help with this and already has a copyright assignment in place.

Any help is appreciated. I will gladly help testing and do work on this 
too, when there is need. But I would like to have John Eigelaar commit 
his changes and go from there instead of going from scratch.

> We will need more functionality in place before we can replace the
> existing lwIP port in the eCos repository trunk. We could use your own
> tree or we could cut a branch in the eCos repository. I would prefer to
> branch the eCos repository as this would enhance visibility within the
> eCos community, gives a better sense of shared ownership, and allows the
> eCos maintainers to monitor progress more easily. Be assured that I am
> keen to support this lwIP port update and will ensure that patches are
> committed to the branch quickly.

I think that's a good idea.

Simon