From: John Dallaway <john@dallaway.org.uk>
To: Simon Kallweit <simon.kallweit@intefo.ch>
Cc: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org
Subject: Re: lwip 1.3.1 package
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A8E4FDC.5020804@dallaway.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A8D505C.3010907@intefo.ch>
Hi Simon
Simon Kallweit wrote:
> I have updated my lwIP package with the final 1.3.1 release. There are
> changes in two areas, and I wonder how to tackle them:
>
> 1. SLIP polling support
>
> I changed the SLIP netif to support polling, so it does not need to run
> in it's own thread when resources are low. I submitted the patch to lwip
> quite a bit of time ago, but there were no reactions:
>
> http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?26397
>
> I could of course remove my changes, but then the eCos package will not
> support SLIP in the simple/polled mode. So I'd also have to change some
> of the glue code. I would rather like to keep SLIP polling support in.
I see that Kieran Mansley has replied to your recent follow up on bug
26397. If you can persuade him to accept the patch it would be good to
keep your SLIP polling support in the eCos package. No need to wait for
the next lwIP release.
> 2. PPP
>
> There are quite a bit of changes I made to the PPP code:
>
> * put code more in line with lwip coding style (mostly renaming)
> * added a simple chat component, to connect a modem to the peer
> * added support for PPP dumps (wireshark)
> * added polling support
> * added an eCos testcase (only for simple/polled mode)
>
> If I restore the original PPP code as suggested, I will also have to
> adapt the glue code and configuration. I would remove the testcase and
> generally mark PPP as experimental. The other way would be to try and
> clean PPP more up, and get the changes commited to lwip, but then we
> would have to wait for another release.
The two scenarios are:
a) Your PPP changes are built upon over time by you and/or other people
and ultimately accepted into lwIP.
b) PPP is fixed in lwIP in a different way, rendering your patches
incompatible and obsolete.
Which do you think is the more likely scenario based on your knowledge
of the lwIP project and your own availability/inclination to work on PPP?
John Dallaway
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-21 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-20 13:28 Simon Kallweit
2009-08-21 7:42 ` John Dallaway [this message]
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=4A8E4FDC.5020804@dallaway.org.uk \
--to=john@dallaway.org.uk \
--cc=ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org \
--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).