public inbox for ecos-devel@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Dallaway <john@dallaway.org.uk>
To: eCos development list <ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org>
Cc: Simon Kallweit <simon.kallweit@intefo.ch>, John Eigelaar <john@kses.net>
Subject: CDL interfaces for eCos networking
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:48:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A099A39.1060606@dallaway.org.uk> (raw)

I've noticed that the common networking infrastructure package
(CYGPKG_NET) declares the same CDL interfaces as the lwIP package
(CYGPKG_NET_LWIP):

  cdl_interface CYGPKG_NET_STACK
  cdl_interface CYGPKG_NET_STACK_INET
  cdl_interface CYGPKG_NET_STACK_INET6

Presumably these interface declarations were placed in CYGPKG_NET at a
time when it was assumed that _all_ networking stack implementations
would use that package.

Now we have the lwIP stack which does not use CYGPKG_NET. If a developer
attempts to load both CYGPKG_NET and CYGPKG_NET_LWIP into a single eCos
configuration, libCDL reports errors due to duplicate cdl_interface
declarations. Of course it's unlikely to be sensible to load both these
packages, but that's not the point - the naming clash should be fixed.

Are these cdl_interfaces intended to indicate the availability of _any_
networking stack or specifically one that provides a BSD sockets API?
At present, the only packages that "require" these interfaces are HTTPD
and Microwindows. I expect that both these packages require BSD sockets.
In that case, I propose that we eliminate the CDL interface declarations
from the lwIP stack. Any future packages which depend on one of the
lwIP-specific stack APIs can simply "require CYGPKG_NET_LWIP".

Comments?

John Dallaway

             reply	other threads:[~2009-05-12 15:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-12 15:48 John Dallaway [this message]
2009-05-12 17:00 ` Bart Veer
2009-05-14 12:19   ` John Dallaway

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4A099A39.1060606@dallaway.org.uk \
    --to=john@dallaway.org.uk \
    --cc=ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org \
    --cc=john@kses.net \
    --cc=simon.kallweit@intefo.ch \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).