From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20317 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2009 07:11:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 20307 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Aug 2009 07:11:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (HELO mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) (81.103.221.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:11:15 +0000 Received: from aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20090819071112.GWQU6611.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:11:12 +0100 Received: from cog.dallaway.org.uk ([86.9.207.237]) by aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP id <20090819071112.CZGC13254.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@cog.dallaway.org.uk>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:11:12 +0100 Received: from cog.dallaway.org.uk (cog.dallaway.org.uk [127.0.0.1]) by cog.dallaway.org.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7J7B9Jv007855; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:11:10 +0100 Message-ID: <4A8BA58D.8020805@dallaway.org.uk> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:11:00 -0000 From: John Dallaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090625) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Kallweit CC: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: lwIP port status References: <4A1173B6.5000805@intefo.ch> <24603788.post@talk.nabble.com> <4A66F713.5030700@intefo.ch> <4A8ADDED.5010400@dallaway.org.uk> <4A8AE5D2.4050305@intefo.ch> In-Reply-To: <4A8AE5D2.4050305@intefo.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 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