This is the mail archive of the ecos-devel@sourceware.org mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: lwIP


Hi Simon

Simon Kallweit wrote:

>> In a perfect world, it would be great to see:
>>
>> a) Support for all functionality of lwIP 1.3.0 (including ethernet, PPP,
>>    IPv4, IPv6, raw API, sequential API, BSD socket API)
> 
> Well, I think we might probably work with the CVS version as the 1.3.1
> release is coming along. The only problems I see is with PPP. In the
> current state it's very hard to support both the sequential (threaded)
> and raw (non-threaded) modes. Might be a good opportunity to clean it up
> and also commit it to the lwIP project.

I agree.

>> b) Compatibility with eCos applications using the existing eCos lwIP
>>    1.1.1 package if possible (API and existing CDL option names
>>    preserved)
> 
> Hmm, I didn't really focus on that. I agree that CDL names should be
> identical as far as possible. Otherwise I'm not sure (initialization
> etc.) if this really matters as long as it's documented well.

If it's just a case of making a different API call to initialise the
stack then I agree this is no problem.

>> d) Absolutely minimal mangling of the lwIP sources (it should be easy to
>>    upgrade lwIP again in the future)
> 
> Mangling is very minimal for these exact reasons, except the PPP sources
> which were changed quite a bit.

Has the PPP support in the current lwIP code regressed relative to lwIP
1.1.1? If there have been serious regressions, we will need to consider
how to manage the transition for users of the existing eCos lwIP package.

If you consider your own fixes for PPP to be just a hack then we might
also consider focussing on ethernet for now and tacking PPP as a
separate activity.

>> h) eCos test cases for all functionality
> 
> I have already ported some tests.

Excellent.

>> Perhaps the best way forward is for John Eigelaar to take Simon
>> Kallweit's package, work on the sequential API initially and post his
>> revised package for review and further work by others. Simon, is the
>> lwIP package in your repository ready for handoff?
> 
> I think we should first discuss my port a little and see if it needs to
> be changed to fit the needs of others.

Sure. What aspects do you think need discussion?

> The sources in my git repository are what I currently use in my project.
> Anybody willing to work on it may just branch my tree.

No problem, so long as other contributors are comfortable with git.

John Dallaway


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]