Re: [lwip-users] Allocating and deallocating an mbox in different threads

[Andrew Lentvorski]

Kieran Mansley wrote:
> So if I understand correctly I think this is specific to the
> modifications that you've made?  I can't see a functional problem with
> changing this as you suggest to post a message that would then result in
> the freeing of the mbox, but I haven't looked at it in detail.  I think
> though that as it is specific to your modifications, it's not
> appropriate to make this change in the general code base.

It would be a problem for anyone who uses an mbox implementation in 
sys_arch.c which is not memory/pointer based.  The issue is that the 
NULL is effectively a stealth shutdown message.  It is *not* specific to 
the fact that I am using 2 threads, multiple mbox-types, etc.

Now, I'm certainly willing to concede that the set of people not using 
memory/pointer-based mbox's may consist of exactly *1* person.  ;)

But using that NULL as a shutdown message definitely breaks the 
sys_arch.c abstractions that you folks spent so much time setting up.

However, if it's just not a concern, then that's cool, too.  I'll just 
hack something in; it's probably easier for me anyhow.  If I don't have 
to worry about feeding it back into the main codebase, then I can just 
create a quick hack rather than work out all the race conditions to 
create a clean patch.

-a