Re: lwip 1.3.2 port

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

Hi Simon

Simon Kallweit wrote:

> John Dallaway schrieb:
>> Hi Simon
>>
>> Simon Kallweit wrote:
>>  
>>> Ok, I merged the 1.3.2 stable code and did a few quick tests (the
>>> changes are not huge). The tarball is at
>>> http://download.westlicht.ch/lwip-20100122.tar.gz
>>>     
>>
>> Some initial comments based mainly on diffs against the upstream lwIP
>> 1.3.2 sources and the eCos lwIP 1.1.1 port:
>>
>> a) On the whole, the upstream sources have very little modification.
>> That's good news for future updates. Is it strictly necessary to move
>> the include/ipv4/ headers into include/ as part of the eCos port? This
>> seems like unnecessary effort and will also make it more difficult to
>> support IPv6 in the future.
> 
> I'll see if we can change that.

Looking at this in more detail, it appears that the only way to preserve
the upstream directory layout would be to add "-I$(PREFIX)/include/ipv4"
to CYGBLD_GLOBAL_CFLAGS. Otherwise, other eCos packages will not find
the IPv4-specific headers when #including netif.h (for example). Perhaps
it is better to move the IPv4 header files as you have done already. We
can think again for a future lwIP import if the IPv6 support moves
beyond "experimental" status.

>> c) There are a lot of small changes under src/netif/ppp/ including
>> function renaming. I understand that you have your own PPP requirements
>> to consider but I think we should stick closer to the master sources for
>> the CVS check-in. Unless your changes have already been accepted
>> upstream?
> 
> Well, yesterday night I have checked the lwip HEAD, and it looks like
> there has been lots of work done in the ppp departement. It now supports
> polling and multi-threaded support out of the box. So it might be
> considerable to directly use the current HEAD for inclusion into eCos
> and keep it updated with the lwip repository until we hit the next
> stable release. Backporting the ppp changes to the 1.3.2 codebase is a
> bit troublesome as the internal timeout framework has changed a bit and
> we would have to backport this too. I would pledge for the use of the
> 1.4.0 development tree. What do you think about this?

We always seem to be waiting for the next version of lwIP. :-)

At this stage, I would favour an initial check-in of something close to
lwIP 1.3.2 followed by an update of the PPP code from the lwIP HEAD as
time permits.

John Dallaway