Re: [lwip-users] SOCK_RAW

[Ed Sutter]

Leon,
Thanks.  One more question.
I've been using LWIP for about a year.  I got it up and running
in a few days and aside from a bug in my own driver, it's just
been working... Kudos to the maintainers!

The good news is... it just works. :-)
The bad news it...  it just works. :-(

I have had no need up to this point to investigate the code other
than to get it ported to my target, and up till now I haven't
had a problem with the apparent "sluggishness" of the sockets API. 

Based on the query, it sounds like several folks have avoided the
sockets API because of this.  So, my question is this...

Assuming the sluggishness is in fact due to the sockets layer, has
anyone considered improving it or does the underlying design of the
sequential API just make it difficult to implement an efficient
sockets layer on top of it?

Ed

Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> 
> Hello Ed,
> 
> On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 17:02, Ed Sutter wrote:
> > on system needs.  So far I have exclusively used the sockets API.
> > Does anyone have any idea what percentage of users are using sockets vs. 
> > sequential?
> >
> We have exclusively used the core only (sequential API). For one
> application we have a multi-thread safe socket layer for uCOS-II on top
> of that.
> 
> >From the list traffic, I would guess a very rough 70% uses the socket
> API.
> 
> Leon.
>