[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE : [lwip-devel] [bug #19206] the ARP layer is notprotectedagainstconcu
From: |
Frédéric BERNON |
Subject: |
RE : [lwip-devel] [bug #19206] the ARP layer is notprotectedagainstconcurrent access |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:49:07 +0100 |
First draft patch. Any comments?
====================================
Frédéric BERNON
HYMATOM SA
Chef de projet informatique
Microsoft Certified Professional
Tél. : +33 (0)4-67-87-61-10
Fax. : +33 (0)4-67-70-85-44
Email : address@hidden
Web Site : http://www.hymatom.fr
====================================
P Avant d'imprimer, penser à l'environnement
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Frédéric BERNON
Envoyé : lundi 5 mars 2007 16:25
À : 'Kieran Mansley'
Cc : 'Simon Goldschmidt'; Frédéric BERNON
Objet : RE : RE : [lwip-devel] [bug #19206] the ARP layer is
notprotectedagainstconcurrent access
It will increase the footprint, but ok, I do it like this...
====================================
Frédéric BERNON
HYMATOM SA
Chef de projet informatique
Microsoft Certified Professional
Tél. : +33 (0)4-67-87-61-10
Fax. : +33 (0)4-67-70-85-44
Email : address@hidden
Web Site : http://www.hymatom.fr
====================================
P Avant d'imprimer, penser à l'environnement
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Kieran Mansley [mailto:address@hidden
Envoyé : lundi 5 mars 2007 16:22
À : Frédéric BERNON
Cc : Simon Goldschmidt
Objet : Re: RE : [lwip-devel] [bug #19206] the ARP layer is
notprotectedagainstconcurrent access
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 16:19 +0100, Frédéric BERNON wrote:
> (I write you directly because my email change (address@hidden ->
> address@hidden) isn't updated on Savannah servers...)
>
> Perhaps do you prefer I set the TCPIP_PACKET_INPUT to 0 as default
> value? With that, old drivers won't have to change their behavior, but
> they still have this problem with ARP (and I don't think it's a good
> thing)... It seems better than add a new message, which finally do the
> same thing : send "packets" from driver to tcpip_thread...
I'm not sure what TCPIP_PACKET_INPUT refers to - I've lost the beginning of the
discussion, but I'd like to see the problem fixed by default, even if that
means existing drivers will need updating.
> Tell me if you prefer that solution (TCPIP_PACKET_INPUT to 0 as
> default value), or if you prefer TCPIP_MSG_ETHINPUT. If you choose
> last, do you want an exclusive feature - at build time - between
> TCPIP_MSG_ETHINPUT and TCPIP_MSG_INPUT?
I don't think we need to have a compile time switch - I can see that a driver
may wish to use both.
Kieran
Frédéric BERNON.vcf
Description: Frédéric BERNON.vcf
arp.patch
Description: arp.patch
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- RE : [lwip-devel] [bug #19206] the ARP layer is notprotectedagainstconcurrent access,
Frédéric BERNON <=