[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?
From: |
Grant Edwards |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"? |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Nov 2021 19:05:18 -0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) |
On 2021-11-16, Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon@gmx.de> wrote:
>> sys_mbox_free() has to unblock receive tasks waiting on
>> recvmbox/acceptmbox and prevent a task pending on this during/after
>> deletion
>>
>> Is that really required?
>> ...
>
> Yeah, well, that comment is outdated as well. Turned out that nearly no
> OS supports this, so it got implemented in a different way.
Cool, thanks. It looks like if I implement the sys-arch
per-thread-semaphore functions, I should be OK...
--
Grant
- [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Grant Edwards, 2021/11/16
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Ajay Bhargav, 2021/11/16
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Simon Goldschmidt, 2021/11/16
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Grant Edwards, 2021/11/16
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Simon Goldschmidt, 2021/11/16
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?,
Grant Edwards <=
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, address@hidden, 2021/11/17
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Grant Edwards, 2021/11/17
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Simon Goldschmidt, 2021/11/17
- Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?, Grant Edwards, 2021/11/17