Re: lwIP port status

[John Dallaway <john@dallaway.org.uk>]

Hi Simon and all

Simon Kallweit wrote:

> John Dallaway schrieb:
>
>> Having reviewed the lwIP ChangeLog, I think it makes sense to simply
>> replace the older lwIP port in the eCos CVS trunk (tagging the
>> repository before the commit). There are known issues with lwIP PPP
>> which need to be addressed upstream. In the meantime, eCos users wishing
>> to work with lwIP PPP should be better off hacking on the lwIP 1.3.1
>> stack where necessary rather than using the older port.
> 
> I think this is the way to go. There is already some hacking on PPP in
> my port, which could lead to some confusion, as it is not identical to
> the lwIP codebase. Also it does only work in a polled environment like
> mine, so it might not be much use of the broad community. I don't know
> how we should proceed with this?

Perhaps it would be preferable to publish your PPP-related changes as a
patch for the time being and keep the CVS sources as close to the master
lwIP code as possible.

>> What is the status of your testing of your lwIP 1.3.x port now? Are you
>> comfortable that it is stable under heavy CPU and network loads?
> 
> Well, the tests I have been doing were successful. But I could only test
> on the synthetic target as my hardware lacks ethernet support. Some
> broader testing on real hardware would be great.

I can certainly test on an x86 PC target. I think Sergei Gavrikov has
also been experimenting with your port (probably on ARM). Are there any
volunteers to perform a basic sanity check of the eCos port on a
big-endian target?

> I'll merge the latest changes from the lwip 1.3.1 release and make a new
> release for review and testing.

Great.

Thank you

John Dallaway